^  Of  PRINCf^ 
lfOtOGICAL  St*^ 


> 


THE   BIBLE  UNDER  TRIAL 


THE    BIBLE 
UNDER    TRIAL 


IN    VIEW    OF     PRESENT-DAY     ASSAULTS    ON 
HOLY    SCRIPTURE 


Rev.    JAMES    ORR,    D.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF  APOLOGETICS    AND    SYSTEMATIC 

THHOLOGY      IN      THE      UNITED      FREE 

CHURCH  COLLEGE, GLASGOW 


"^hg  fcoorb  is  a  lamp  unto  mj)  fttt,  an5 
light  unto  mg  rath" 

— Ps.  cxix.  49 


SECOND    EDITION 

New  York:  A.C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON 

3  and  5  West  Eighteenth  Street:  1907 


R.  W.  SIMPSON  AND  CO.,  LTD., 

PRINTERS, 

RICHMOND  AND  LONDON. 


Preface 


THE  Papers  composing  this  volume  were  prepared  in 
response  to  urgent  request  as  a  popular  apolo- 
getic series  in  defence  of  the  Bible  from  the  attacks 
made  on  it  from  different  quarters.  They  are  now 
published  in  the  hope  that  they  may  do  something  to 
steady  the  minds  of  those  who  are  in  perplexity  owing  to 
the  multitude  and  confusion  of  the  opinions  that  prevail 
in  these  times  regarding  the  Sacred  Book.  The  Papers 
are  written  from  the  standpoint  of  faith  in  the  Bible  as 
the  inspired  and  authoritative  record  for  us  of  God's 
revealed  will.  The  author  has  no  sympathy  with  the 
view  which  depreciates  the  authority  of  Scripture  in  order 
to  exalt  over  against  it  the  authority  of  Christ.  He  does 
not  acknowledge  that  there  is  any  collision  between  the 
two  things,  or  that  they  can  be  really  severed,  the  one 
from  the  other.  He  finds  the  Word  of  God  and  of 
Christ  in  the  Scriptures,  and  knows  no  other  source  of 
acquaintance  with  it.  As  designed  for  the  general 
Christian  reader,  the  Papers  make  no  pretence  to 
exhaustive  treatment.  They  confine  themselves  to 
tracing  broad  outlines  of  defence  and  vindication.  For 
fuller  discussion,  from  his  own  point  of  view,  of  the 
topics  dealt  with,  the  author  may  refer  to  his  books  on 

v. 


Preface 

The  Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World  (8th  Edition), 
The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  (4th  Edition),  and 
God's  Image  itr  Man  and  its  Defacement  (3rd  Edition). 
His  earnest  prayer  is  that  these  pages  may  be  found  of 
assistance  to  some  who  may  feel  that  their  feet  have  been 
sliding  beneath  them. 

The  author  acknowledges  his  indebtedness  to  Ebenezer 
Russell,  Esq.,  Glasgow,  for  valuable  aid  in  the  correction 
of  the  proofs. 


VI. 


Contents 


Page 

I.    The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible         .        3 
II.    An  Instructive  Object  Lesson  .  25 

III.  "Presuppositions"   in    Old   Testament 

Criticism    .  .  .  .49 

IV.  "  Settled  Results  "  in  Criticism  .  73 
V.    Israel's  God  and  Worship       .                      .      97 

VI.  Archaeology  as  Searchlight  .             121 

VII.  The  Citadel— Christ       .  .                -147 

VIII.  The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels  .  .            171 

IX.  Oppositions  of  Science      .  .                -199 

X.    The    Bible    and    Ethics  :     "  God    and    My 

Neighbour"         .  .  .227 

XI.    Discrepancies  and  Difficulties       .  .    257 

XII.    The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World  285 

Appendix  :  Prof.  G.  A.  Smith  on  "  Recent 
Developments  of  Old  Testament 
Criticism"  .  .  .  311 

Index       .....    319 


vn. 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the 
Bible 


The  Present  Day 
Trial  of  the   Bible 


IT  may  be  a  suitable  opening  for  these  papers  to 
consider  how  the  case  stands  to-day  with  the  trial 
of  the  Bible  as  the  written  Word  of  God.  There 
are  misconceptions  and  alarms  prevalent  which  a 
calm  outlook  on  the  actual  situation  may  do  something 
to  remove  and  abate.  I  would  fain  speak  a  word  to 
remove  the  disquietude  under  which  many  labour,  as  if 
Christianity  and  God's  Word  were  at  length  about  to  be 
engulfed  in  the  encroaching  waves  of  scepticism.  There 
is  conflict  enough,  but  no  such  consequence  as  this  is 
going  to  follow. 

"  The  word  of  the  Lord,"  the  Psalm  says,  "  is  tried  " 
(Ps.  xviii.  30).  Again,  "The  words  of  the  Lord  are 
pure  words ;  as  silver  tried  in  a  furnace  on  the  earth, 
purified  seven  times"  (Ps.  xii.  6).  The  Bible,  least  of 
all,  need  shrink  from  this  ordeal  of  trial ;  nor  does  it. 
God  never  asks  His  people  to  put  their  trust  in,  or  stay 
their  souls  on,  that  which  cannot  endure  the  most  search- 
ing fires  of  trial. 

The  supremest  test,  of  course,  to  which  the  Bible  can 
be  put  is — 

THE    TEST   OF    EXPERIENCE. 

Does  its  message  commend  itself  on  personal  trial 
to  mind,   and   conscience,  and    heart  ?     Does   it   verify 

3 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

itself,  when  accepted,  in  heart  and  life  ?  Does  it  prove 
able  to  bear  the  weight  which  innumerable  souls  through 
long  ages  have-  rested  on  it  ?  Does  it  show  itself, 
historically,  possessed  of  the  properties  which,  as  an 
inspired  Word,  are  claimed  for  it — those,  for  example, 
in  Ps.  xix.  7,8,  of  converting  the  soul,  making  wise  the 
simple,  enlightening  the  eyes;  or  in  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17,  of 
making  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus,  of  being  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  "  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  complete,  furnished  completely 
unto  every  good  work."  He  that  has  this  witness  of 
God's  Word  in  himself  (1  John  v.  10)  need  fear  no 
assault  from  without.  We  move  here  in  a  region  high 
as  heaven  itself  above  all  debatable  questions  of  science 
and  criticism. 

It  is  not  this  test  of  experience,  however,  I  mean  to 
dwell  on  at  present,  though  it  will  often  recur  in  our 
discussions,    but  rather 

THE   OUTWARD   TRIAL, 

to  which  the  Bible  in  our  day  is  exposed — the  trial  of 
opposition,  of  conflict,  of  controversy. 

I. 

And  here  the  first  thing  we  need  to  remind 
ourselves  of  is  that  this  trial  of  God's  Word  by 
outward  assault  is  nothing  new  ;  God's  Word  has 
been  a  tried  word  in  all  ages.  There  never  has  been 
a  time  in  history  when  it  has  not  had  to  encounter  fierce 
and  persistent  opposition.  If,  then,  we  see  unbelief 
lifting  up  its  head  in  many  directions  in  these  latter 
days,  we  need  not  be  perplexed  and  dismayed,  as  if  some 
strange  thing  had  happened  to  us.  It  lies  in  the  nature 
of  things,  and  is  God's  will,  that  it  should  be  so  ;  it  is  part 

4 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

of  the  fiery  trial  of  our  faith  (i  Pet.  i.  7),  and  the  chief 
way  by  which  the  imperishable  truth  of  God's  Word  is 
made  manifest.  People  are  astonished  that,  if  Christianity 
be  true,  it  should  be  impugned  by  multitudes  as  it  is. 
They  forget.  In  Isaiah's  day  God  declared  that  the 
stone  He  would  lay  in  Zion  as  a  sure  foundation  would 
be  "a  tried  stone"  (Is.  xxviii.  16).  God  did  not 
anticipate  that  this  stone,  being  planted  there,  would 
remain  there  without  being  put  to  test  or  trial.  It  was 
not  a  stone  which  God  was  to  lay,  and  no  one  dispute 
the  laying  of  it ;  not  a  stone  that  God  was  to  lay, 
and  no  one  refuse  to  build  upon  it ;  not  a  stone  that  God 
was  to  lay,  and  no  one  contest  its  right  to  be  there.  If 
it  was  a  foundation  stone,  it  was  at  the  same  time  to 
be  a  tried  stone,  and  in  the  trial  was  to  be  proved  to  be 
the  stone  of  God's  laying  more  clearly  than  ever.  He 
who  realises  this,  the  prophet  says,  "  will  not  make  haste  " 
-will  not  readily  be  thrown  into  panic  or  anxiety  when 
new  forms  of  opposition  make  their  appearance.  As 
the  Apostle  Peter  gives  the  sense  of  the  words,  he  will 
"  not  be  put  to  shame  "  (1  Pet.  ii.  16). 
This  fact  that  God's  Word  has  been 

A   TRIED   WORD   IN   ALL   AGES 

would  admit  of  easy  demonstration  were  this  the  place 
to  trace  its  history,  and  in  it  lies  strong  encouragement 
for  our  faith  to-day.  The  Lord  Himself  was  continually 
met  in  the  preaching  of  His  Gospel  by  the  hostility  and 
opposition  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  who  thought,  finally, 
they  had  got  rid  of  Him  by  condemning  Him  to  the 
Cross  which  proved  to  be  His  throne  of  empire.  The 
ministry  of  the  Apostles  was  a  continual  experience  of 
opposition  and  persecution.  And  what  of  after  times? 
We  are  apt  to  think  that  in  an  age  like  ours,  with  its 
formidable  new  weapons  of  assault  on  revealed  truth,  the 

5 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

conflict  of  faith  with  unbelief  is  far  keener  and  more  deadly 
than  in  any  previous  time.  But  this  is  largely  due  to 
lack  of  perspective. 

Does  anyone,  for  example,  who  knows  the  conditions  of 

THE   SECOND   CENTURY, 

think  that  the  sceptical  and  subtle  pagans  of  that  age 
had  not  their  eyes  on  all  the  weak  points — or  what 
they  took  to  be  the  weak  points — of  our  religion,  when 
they  wrote  those  books  and  satires,  some  of  which  still 
remain,  as  clever  and  witty,  relatively  to  their  time,  as 
anything  in  the  artillery  of  unbelief  to-day.  The  second 
century  was,  indeed,  to  an  extent  not  always  realised,  an 
era  of  strenuous  conflict  for  the  truth.  It  was  marked 
not  only  by  the  outward  martyr  conflict  with  paganism, 
and  by  the  keen  literary  attacks  just  referred  to,  but 
by  the  all-pervading  influences  of  a  subtle  Oriental 
theosophy,  which,  had  they  prevailed,  would  speedily 
have  dissipated  historical  Christianity  into  empty 
phantasies.  The  controversy  with  Gnosticism  was 
largely  a  conflict  about  Scripture.  The  Scriptures  were 
the  direct  object  of  attack — the  Old  Testament  in  its 
entirety,  as  being,  so  it  was  held,  the  revelation  of  an 
inferior  and  immoral  deity;  the  New  Testament  in 
considerable  part,  and  wholly  as  regarded  its  historical 
truth.  This,  too,  in  an  age  when  the  Church  was  yet 
young  and  feeble,  and  its  Canon  of  Scripture  only  yet  in 
process  of  formation.  When  the  era  of  pagan  persecution 
closed,  it  was  again  with  a  determined  effort  to  crush 
out  the  life  of  the  Church  by  compelling  the  surrender 
and  destruction  of  its  Scriptures. 
Or  glance  at 

THE   MIDDLE   AGES, 

the  latter  part  of  which  witnessed  the  attempt  of  the 
Roman  Church  to  suppress  the  reading  and  circulation  of 

6 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

the  Bible  among  the  laity.  It  is  customary  to  speak  of 
these  ages  of  the  ascendency  of  the  Church  as  the  "  Ages 
of  Faith "  ;  but  does  anyone  think  that  there  was  no 
scepticism  in  Europe  as  the  result  of  that  great  outburst 
of  learning  and  of  new  ideas  that  broke  upon  the  world 
in  that  period  ?  Dr.  Liddon  has  justly  said  :  "  It  may 
fairly  be  questioned  whether  the  publicly  proclaimed 
unbelief  of  modern  times  is  really  more  general  or  more 
pronounced  than  the  secret,  but  active  and  deeply 
penetratingscepticism  which  during  considerable  portions 
of  the  middle  ages  laid  such  hold  upon  the  intellect  of 
Europe."*  The  renaissance  of  paganism  in  the  fifteenth 
century  literally  honeycombed  Europe  with  new  and 
bizarre  forms  of  unbelief,  while  the  Church  which  should 
have  resisted  it  was  sunk  in  deadliest  corruption.  Yet 
in  pious  circles  the  study  of  God's  Word  never  wholly 
died  out,  and  translations  into  the  speech  of  the  people 
were  made,  and  circulated,  mostly  secretly,  in  the  chief 
European  countries.  Thus  was  prepared  the  way  for  the 
grand  revival  of  the  Reformation,  flinging  open  once 
more  the  gates  of  the  knowledge  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  and 
great  was  the  joy  with  which  the  enfranchised  Church 
entered  on  its  inheritance. 

But  soon  the  sky  was  again  clouded.  Philosophy  and 
science  made  rapid  advances  as  the  result  of  that  very 
emancipation  of  the  human  intellect  which  the  Reforma- 
tion had  fostered,  and  ere  long  the  seeds  of  a  new 
rationalism  began  to  be  sown  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Church,  with  effects  disastrous  to  reverent  faith  in  the 
Scriptures. 

THE    EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY 

was  the  peculiar  era  of  this  older  rationalism  in  all  the 
countries  of  Europe,  and,    in    its    various    forms    of   a 

*13ampton  Lectures  on  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  p.   123  (5th  Edition). 

7 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

rampart  Deism  in  England,  of  Voltaireism  in  France, 
of  the  superficial  rationalism  of  the  "  Illumination  "  in 
Germany,  it  ate  into  the  vitals  of  these  countries,  and 
for  a  time  made  Christianity  almost  a  name  of  mockery 
in  cultivated  circles. 

What  religion  was  in  England  in  this  period  may  be 
learned  from  the  often-quoted  passage  from  Bishop 
Butler's  "  Advertisement  "  to  his  "  Analogy  of  Religion." 
"It  has  come,"  he  says,  "  I  know  not  how,  to  be  taken 
for  granted  by  many  persons,  that  Christianity  is  not  so 
much  as  a  subject  for  inquiry ;  but  that  it  is  now,  at 
length,  discovered  to  be  fictitious.  And  accordingly 
they  treat  it  as  if,  in  the  present  age,  this  were  an 
agreed  point  among  all  people  of  discernment,  and 
nothing  remained  but  to  set  it  up  as  a  principal  subject 
of  mirth  and  ridicule,  as  it  were,  by  way  of  reprisals  for 
its  having  so  long  interrupted  the  pleasures  of  the  world." 

Will  it  be  said  by  the  most  pessimistic  that  there  is 
anything  like  this  among  us  to-day  ?  On  the  contrary, 
we  have  to-day,  I  dare  to  say,  more  aggressive  work 
on  the  part  of  the  Christian  Church  than  almost  in  any 
previous  age.  The  Church  of  Christ  to-day,  notwith- 
standing all  these  forces  of  unbelief  we  hear  of  around 
us,  has  more  members,  is  circulating  more  Bibles,  is 
doing  more  good,  is  extending  itself  more  widely  in  the 
world,  is  cherishing  in  its  heart  more  earnestly  the  dream 
of  universal  empire,  than  at  any  previous  period  of  its 
history  !  Only  it  is  doing  this  on  the  ground  of  the  old 
Evangel,  not  on  the  ground  of  the  new  theories  of 
religion  and  of  the  Bible.  Let  us  thank  God  for  it,  and 
not  be  downcast. 

II. 

In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  recall  the  causes 
which,  in  these  different  ages,  brought  about 

8 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

THE   DELIVERANCE   OF   THE    CHURCH 

from  an  enthralling  scepticism  and  irreligion.  The 
present  age  has  abounding  faith  in  "scholarship." 
When  a  scholar  speaks  about  the  Bible,  let  no  man  peep 
or  mutter.  And  I  should  assuredly  be  the  last  to  seem  to 
throw  any  slight  on  sound  and  accurate  scholarship. 
Let  scholars  be  fought  by  all  means  with  the  weapons  of 
scholars. 

But  it  is  very  much  to  the  point  to  observe  that  it  has 
never  been  by  learning,  by  philosophy,  by  science,  by 
scholarship,  that  the  Church  has  been  revived  and  saved 
in  eras  of  great  religious  laxity  and  abounding  infidelity. 
When  Jesus  introduced  His  religion  into  the  world  He 
did  not  choose  "scholars,"  but  humble,  simple-minded 
men,  attached  to  Himself  by  a  living  faith,  and  endued 
with  power  from  on  high,  to  do  it,  as  witnesses  to  His 
words,  works,  and  resurrection.  "  The  base  things  of 
the  world,  and  the  things  that  are  despised,  did  God 
choose,  yea,  and  the  things  that  are  not,  that  He  might 
bring  to  nought  the  things  that  are  "  (i  Cor.  i.  28). 

And  what  has  been  the  verdict  of  history  on  this 
method  ?  Has  it  not  justified  it  in  the  most  emphatic 
way  ?  Surely  it  is  the  greatest  thing  we  can  say  about 
these  first  disciples  of  Jesus — the  most  convincing 
testimony  we  can  bear  to  their  own  greatness — that  they 
had  the  eyes  to  see,  that  when  the  wise  men  of  the 
world  of  that  time  were  blinded,  and  could  not  see, 
they  had  the  power  to  discern  something  of  the  meaning, 
the  importance,  the  world-wide  significance  of  this  great 
appearance  in  their  midst ;  that  they  had  the  power  to 
take,  in  some  degree,  the  measure  of  that  great  spiritual 
movement  which  the  heads  of  the  people,  the  Caiaphases, 
Pilates,  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  Rabbis,  were  all  blind  to, 
and   could   only   set  down    to   some   passing   spasm   of 

9 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

superstition !  They  took  in  some  degree  the  measure 
of  the  spiritual  greatness  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
saw  something  of  what  His  Person  and  work  really 
meant  for  men;  saw  that  there  was  laid  in  Him  the 
foundation  of  a  great  world-wide  religion  ;  that  bound 
up  in  Him  were  hopes  grand  and  glorious  beyond  expres- 
sion for  the  individual  and  the  race !  This  is  their 
eternal  title  to  honour.  By  means  of  it  they  became 
the  instruments  of  a  revolution  which  changed  the  face  of 
the  world.  God  hid  it  from  "  the  wise  and  prudent," 
but  revealed  it  "  unto  babes  "  (Matt.  xi.  25). 

So  when  we  come  to  the  later  age  of  the  Reformation, 
what  brought  the  remedy  for  the  unbelief  and  spiritual 
evils  under  which  that  age  groaned  ?  Not  scholarship 
or  science,  but  the  discovery  in  Scripture  and  faithful 
proclamation  of  the  living  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God 
by  Luther  and  his  fellow-reformers,  men  who  had  felt 
its  power  in  their  own  souls. 

And  once  more,  what  rescued  the  Church  from  the 
torpor  and  death  of  the  negation  of  the  eighteenth 
century  ?  The  deliverance  came,  not  from  philosophy  or 
learning,  not  even  from  the  works  of  able  apologists  like 
Butler,  but  from  the  tides  of 

THE   SPIRITUAL    REVIVAL 

that  swept  over  Britain,  and  were  felt  in  other  lands, 
under  the  preaching  of  such  men  as  Whitefield  and  the 
Wesleys.  This  it  was  which  gave  evangelism  the  victory 
once  more  over  indifference  and  unbelief,  and  breathed 
the  new  breath  of  life  into  society  which  introduced 
the  era  of  missions  to  the  heathen,  Bible  diffusion,  home 
evangelisation,  and  the  innumerable  social  reforms  of  the 
last  century.  It  is  to  a  like  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  upon  His  Church,  and  to  the  same  divine  energy 
manifesting  itself  in  holy  lives  and  practical  work,  far 

10 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

more  than  to  learned  confutations,  however  valuable 
these  may  be  in  their  place,  that  we  must  look  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  forms  of  unbelief  that  lift  up  their 
heads  among  us  to-day.  The  owls  vanish  when  the 
daylight  reappears. 

III. 

THE   ASSAULTS    UPON   THE   BIBLE 

which  cause  most  anxiety  at  the  present  hour,  it  will 
be  generally  agreed,  are  those  which  come  from  the 
newer  schools  of  Old  and  New  Testament  criticism,  from 
a  popular  monistic  philosophy,  from  evolutionary  theories 
in  science,  and  from  the  absorbing  interest  which  has 
recently  been  displayed  in  the  study  of  comparative 
religion  and  mythology.  The  two  subjects  which  are 
most  to  the  front  are  criticism  and  science,  though  signs 
are  not  wanting  that  the  foremost  role  may  soon  be 
taken  by  the  comparative  study  of  religions. 

Of  course,  it  is  recognised  that  mistakes  may  be  made, 
and  old  controversies  on  all  these  subjects  carry  in  them 
lessons  to  be  wisely  laid  to  heart  by  both  the  assailants 
and  the  defenders  of  the  Bible.  Voltaire  was  confident 
that  Christianity  would  be  overthrown  by  the  discovery 
of  the  law  of  gravitation,  and  would  not  survive  a 
century.  Yet  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  who  discovered  the 
law,  was  a  humble  Christian  man.  Strauss  boldly 
affirmed  that  the  Copernican  system  gave  the  death-blow 
to  the  Christian  view  of  the  world.*  But  what  Christian 
to-day  feels  his  faith  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by 
the  discovery  that  the  earth  goes  round  the  sun,  and  not 
the  sun,  as  was  once  believed,  round  the  earth. 

There  were  many  vauntings  that  the  Bible  was  dis- 
credited, and  many  shakings  of  heart  on  the  part  of 
believers  in  the  Bible  themselves,  when  geology  made  it 
*  See  his  Der  alte  unci  der  neue  Glaube,  pp.  10  and  no. 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

certain  that  the  world  was  immensely  older  than  the 
6,000  years  assigned  to  it  since  the  creation  by  the 
current  chronology.  The  saintly  Cowper  could  poke  his 
gentle  satire  at  the  geologists  : — 

M  Some  drill  and  bore 
The  solid  earth,  and  from  the  strata  there 
Extract  a  register,  by  which  we  learn 
That  He  who  made  it,  and  reveal'd  its  date 
To  Moses,  was  mistaken  in  its  age."* 

But  few  are  troubled  at  the  present  time,  or  feel  that 
even  the  "days"  of  Genesis  are  put  in  serious  peril,  by 
the  discovery,  through  the  same  drilling  and  boring,  of 
the  magnificent  procession  of  the  aeons  through  which 
the  work  of  creation  actually  extended. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  we  shall  see  by  and  by,  science 
also  has  had  to  lay  aside  many  extreme  hypotheses,  and 
abandon  or  modify  theories,  which  created,  or  seemed  to 
create,  difficulties  in  comparison  with  Scripture. 

One  is  taught  by  these  things  to  avoid  dogmatism,  and 
wait  patiently  for  the  progress  of  discovery,  when  many 
things  which  present  difficulty  at  a  cruder  stage  of  science 
will  clear  themselves  up  of  their  own  accord.      Yet 

THERE   ARE    LIMITS, 

as  everyone  also  must  admit,  set  by  the  nature  of 
the  case  to  this  process  of  conciliation.  Because  good 
Christian  men  once  mistakenly  contended  for  the  inspir- 
ation of  the  Hebrew  vowel-points,  it  does  not  follow,  as 
seems  sometimes  to  be  argued,  that  the  most  radical  results 
of  a  destructive  criticism  are  compatible  with  faith  in  the 
Bible's  inspiration  and  authority.  Because  people  once 
believed  that  the  sun  went  round  the  earth,  and  shook 
their  heads  in  alarm  at  geological  discoveries  of  the  age 
of  the  earth,  it  does  not  follow  that  spiritual  religion — 
*T/te  Task,  Bk.  III. 

12 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

not  to  say  Christian  faith — can  ever  reconcile  itself  to  a 
form  of  theory  that  declares  mind  to  be  a  mere  function 
of  brain,  denies  free  will,  and  pours  scorn  on  belief  in 
immortality.  Because  there  are  different  views  on 
evolution  and  creation,  it  does  not  follow  that  any  and 
every  account  of  the  mode  of  man's  physical  and  spiritual 
origin  leaves  intact  the  Bible  doctrine  of  sin.  There  is 
need,  I  grant,  for  caution,  and  for  wise  and  charitable 
discrimination  between  essentials  and  non-essentials  in 
belief,  as  in  practice.  But  there  are  none  the  less  great 
and  vital  issues  between  truth  and  error  about  the  Bible 
which  no  sophistry  can  obscure,  and  no  juggling  with 
words  efface. 

IV. 

The  church  is  deeply  concerned  at  the  moment  with 
the  bearings  and  issues  of  what  is  called 

THE   HIGHER   CRITICISM. 

It  is  well  to  understand  what  the  feeling  really  is  which 
lies  at  the  bottom  of  this  anxiety.  It  is  not  at  all,  in  the 
first  place,  a  feeling  as  to  the  general  legitimacy  of 
criticism.  I  do  not  believe — and  the  reception  given  to 
my  own  volume  on  the  Old  Testament  confirms  me  in 
this  opinion — that  any  really  devout  student  of  the  Bible 
desires  to  tie  up  honest  inquiry  on  any  question  of 
author,  origin,  date,  or  mode  of  composition  of  the 
Biblical  books,  which  does  not  involve  clear  contradic- 
tion of  the  Bible's  own  testimony  on  these  subjects.  By 
all  means,  if  any  traditional  opinion  can  be  shown  by 
valid  reasoning  on  sound  data  to  be  in  error  on  such 
points,  let  it  be  corrected. 

The  feeling  as  to  the  type  of  Higher  Criticism  now  in 
vogue  goes  much  deeper.  What  is  felt  is  that  this 
newer   school    of  criticism — commonly    known    as    the 

13 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

11  Wellhausen "  school  from  its  most  distinguished 
representative — really  subverts  the  basis  of  a  reasonable 
faith  in  the  Bible,  and  of  a  revelation  of  God  contained 
in  it,  altogether.  There  are  moderate  and  devout  men 
in  this  country — men  whom  personally  one  must  honour 
— who  seek  to  tone  down  the  negations  of  the  theory,  and 
breathe  into  it  a  more  believing  spirit ;  but  for  the 
exhibition  of  its  principles  one  prefers  to  go  to  the 
originators  and  accredited  representatives  of  the  school ; 
and,  even  in  the  works  of  the  moderate  critics,  one  soon 
discovers  that  the  best  efforts  cannot  remove  the  taint 
of  rationalism  which  inheres  in  its  very  essence. 
It  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that,  on  the 

MOST   FAVOURABLE   SHOWING 

in  this  theory,  little  is  left  of  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic 
history ;  that  the  Bible's  own  account  of  the  origin, 
nature,  and  course  of  development  of  Israel's  religion  dis- 
appears, and  an  entirely  different  account,  resting  on  dif- 
ferent premises,  is  substituted  for  it ;  that  till  the  times 
of  the  prophets,  at  least,  the  supernatural  recedes  very 
much  behind  the  natural,  and  miracle  is  hardly  recog- 
nised ;  that  practically  all  the  legislation  is  taken  from 
Moses  and  ascribed  to  a  much  later  date ;  while  the 
Levitical  system  in  its  main  features  is  held  to  be  a 
post-exilian  invention,  imposing  on  the  returned  Jewish 
remnant  a  code  of  ritual  which  the  prophets  of  an  earlier 
age,  had  they  known  of  it,  would  have  vehemently 
denounced  as  dishonouring  to  Jehovah  ! 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  literature  of  the 
school  will  admit,  I  think,  that  this  is  an  exceedingly 
mild  account  of  its  general  teaching  ;*  but  if  it  is 
accepted,  it  surely  sufficiently  explains  the  repugnance 
with  which  the  immense  mass  of  Christian  people  in 
*  Illustrations  will  be  tfiven  later. 

M 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

our  churches  regard  this  strange  method  of  dealing  with 
God's  Holy  Word.  If  in  their  denunciation  of  it  they 
sometimes  say  and  feel  that  it  is  really  asking  them  to 
accept 

ANOTHER   BIBLE, 

they  are  not  without  justification  for  that  opinion  in 
certain  utterances  of  the  school  itself.  Here  is  a  recent 
pronouncement  by  a  distinguished  representative  of  the 
more  moderate  wing  of  the  school,  Prof.  A.  Westphal,  of 
Montauban.  "It  is  not  in  vain,"  he  says,  "that  the 
internal  ferment  provoked  by  the  old  struggles  has  troubled 
the  Church  for  long  years.  If  it  has  not  succeeded  in 
furnishing  the  theological  renovation  which  was  expected 
from  it,  the  work  of  dislocation  of  traditional  ideas  is 
none  the  less  accomplished.  Little  by  little  the  abyss 
has  been  dug  between  the  catechism  of  the  Church  (du 
temple)  and  the  theology  of  the  school ;  the  day  is  coming 
when  we  shall  be  faced  with  two  Bibles,  the  Bible  of 
the  faithful,  and  the  Bible  of  the  scholar."* 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  quotations  to  the  same 
effect,  but  this  is  sufficient  at  present  to  show  the  gravity 
of  the  issue  by  which  the  Church  is  to-day  confronted. 

It  adds  to  the  gravity  of  the  case  that,  according  to 
the  school  itself,  the  "  critical  views "  represented  by 
it  (so  writes  one)  are  "  at  present  all  but  universally 
held  by  Old  Testament  scholars."  This,  like  many 
other  statements  of  the  school,  requires,  as  we  shall 
afterwards  find,  to  be  taken  cum  grano  ;  but  there  is  no 
doubt  that  for  many  years  the  Wellhausen  school  has 
been  the  dominant  one,  and  has,  in  more  or  less  pro- 
nounced forms,  attracted  an  ever-increasing  following  to 
its  banner  ;  and  that  in  Britain  and  America   it  is  dis- 

*"  Le  jour  vient  ou  deux  Bibles  seront  en  presence  :  la  Bible 
du  fidele  el  la  Bible  du  savant."— Jehovah,  les  Etapes  de  la  Ji<fv/lw 
lion.     Pref.  p.  3. 

15 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

tinctly  the  ruling  school  still.  Writers  have  almost  ceased 
to  argue  about  it ;  they  are  content  to  repeat  its  shib- 
boleths, and  register  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  its 
"  settled  results."  It  might  appear  as  if  the  representa- 
tive of  "  the  traditional  view  "  had  nothing  left  for  him 
to  do  but  to  pull  down  his  flag  and  gratefully  accept  what 
crumbs  of  history,  law,  and  prophetic  teaching — the  last 
in  larger  measure — the  critic  is  able  to  rescue  for  him  from 
the  general  wreckage. 

V. 

Before,  however,  giving  way  to  undue  alarm,  the 
believer  in  the  Bible,  as  we  have  been  accustomed  to 
understand  it,  will  do  well  to  place  before  his  mind 

CERTAIN    REASSURING   CONSIDERATIONS 

which  may  help  somewhat  to  modify  a  desponding  judg- 
ment on  the  situation.  I  mention  here  only  two  or 
three  of  these,  reserving  further  survey  of  this  and  other 
forms  of  trial  of  the  Bible  to  succeeding  papers. 

(i)  One  preliminary  consideration  of  some  importance 
is  that,  after  all,  very  much  in  the  contentions  of  the 
Wellhausen  school  is  not  new,  and  what  is  new  has  not 
yet,  as  theories  go,  had  a  very  long  time  to 

THOROUGHLY   TEST  AND   ESTABLISH 

itself.  Dr.  Cheyne,  in  his  book  on  The  Founders  of 
Criticism,  draws  attention  with  justice  to  the  great 
indebtedness  of  the  earlier  critical  schools  to  English 
Deism  (pp.  I,  2).  One  is  continually  struck  in  reading 
the  attacks  on,  and  defences  of,  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
old  Deistical  controversy,  with  the  surprising  anticipations 
of  the  difficulties,  errors,  contradictions,  imperfections, 
immoralities  served  up  to-day  as  the  newest  learning  in 
Old  Testament  criticism.     Not  a  little  on  these  subjects 

16 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

in  modern  books  is  already  to  be  found,  as  vigorously 
stated,  in  Morgan,  and  Bolingbroke,  and  Paine,  and  in 
the  older  rationalists  like  Vatke  and  Von  Bohlen.  Yet 
faith  in  the  Bible  withstood  the  shock  then — gave,  more- 
over, exceedingly  good  reasons  for  doing  so — and  is  not 
likely  to  be  overturned  by  the  reproduction  of  the  same 
things  now. 

On  the  other  hand,  what  is  new  in  the  Wellhausen 
theory,  particularly  the  post-exilian  dating  of  the  Levitical 
Law,  has  not  yet  had  a  very  long  period  of  trial.  The 
critical  theory,  of  which  it  is  the  outcome,  has  been 
maturing  for  more  than  a  century ;  but  this  part  of  it, 
though  advanced  tentatively  by  earlier  investigators,  met 
with  little  or  no  favour  till  twenty-five  or  thirty  years 
ago,  when,  in  the  wake  of  Graf's  book  in  1866,  it  "  caught 
on  "  through  the  able  advocacy  of  Kuenen  and  Well- 
hausen. Previously  to  that  it  had  been  generally  rejected 
as  an  incredible  folly.  Kuenen  himself,  in  1861,  spoke  of 
its  grounds  as  "not  worthy  of  refutation."  While, 
therefore,  the  Wellhausen  theory  has  more  recently  had 
a  remarkable  success,  it  is  still,  as  such  things  go, 

A  COMPARATIVE   NOVELTY, 

and  it  is  quite  too  early  yet  to  speak  of  it  as  "  a  settled 
result."  The  history  of  the  Tubingen  school  in  New 
Testament  criticism  holds  out,  as  we  shall  by  and  by 
see,  a  warning  here.  There  were  causes  in  the  state  of 
thought  of  our  time  which  favoured  the  rise  of  such  a 
school;  it  was  imported  as  a  novelty,  and  "  rushed  "  in 
this  country  by  certain  very  able  scholars  ;  adventitious 
circumstances  gave  it  an  artificial  eclat,  and  predisposed 
younger  scholars  in  a  chivalrous  spirit  to  adopt  it ;  as  its 
influence  spread  it  became  a  kind  of  tradition,  a  fashion 
of  thought,  and  was  often  assented  to  because  scholars 
11  said  it,"  without  much  independent  examination  of  its 

17  c 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

grounds.  Its  somewhat  gourd-like  popularity  is  itself  a 
good  reason  for  being  chary  in  yielding  to  it  an  unqualified 
assent. 

(2)  There  is,  however,  a  second  consideration  which 
strongly  fortifies  this  moral  of  the  first.  The  school  in 
question  has  had  an  astonishing  success,  but  it  is  by  no 
means  the  case  that  it  has  had  all  the  field  to  itself,  or 
that  it  has  it  now,  or  has  it  in  any  increasing  degree.  It 
is  a  fact  that  in  every  age 

EXCESSES   OF    CRITICISM 

tend  to  work  out  their  own  cure.  It  was  so  in  the 
Tubingen  school ;  and  so  it  is  proving  itself  to  be  here. 
Scholars  may  talk  as  they  will  of  "settled  results,"  but  it 
is  undeniable  that  extraordinary  changes  are  taking  place 
within  the  critical  school,  which  augur  ill  for  its  future 
ascendency.  The  Wellhausen  theory  applies  the  prin- 
ciple of  evolution  to  the  religion  of  Israel,  but  its  own 
development  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple. I  shall  have  occasion  later  to  speak  of  some  of 
these  developments ;  enough  at  present  to  say  that  they 
run  the  theory  into  such  excesses  in  multiplication  of 
sources,  minute  dissection  of  documents,  extension  of 
time  in  the  process,  complicated  operations  in  combina- 
tion and  redaction,  that  the  theory  literally  breaks  down 
under  its  own  weight,  and  becomes  incredible  to  soberly 
thinking  minds.  I  have  compared  it  in  my  book  to  the 
constant  adding  on  of  cycles  and  epicycles  in  the 
Ptolemaic  astronomer's  chart,  till  it  became  a  huge  maze 
of  confusion  which  defied  belief.  The  theory,  in  my 
humble  opinion,  is  rapidly  running  to  seed  ;  by  its  very 
excesses  is  digging  its  own  grave. 

(3)  This  leads  me  to  say,  next,  that,  in  point  of  fact, 

GREAT    CHANGES 

are  already  apparent  in  influential  quarters  in  the  state  of 

18 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

opinion  on  Old  Testament  questions  ;  and  greater  changes 
are  surely  imminent  in  the  near  future.  I  do  not  refer  to 
the  still  powerful  body  of  opinion  on  the  Continent  that 
refuses  adhesion  to  the  Wellhausen  programme — a  great 
deal  more  powerful  than  many  imagine — or  to  the  changes 
in  individual  opinion  that  occasionally  occur,  though 
these  also  are  noteworthy  as  signs  of  the  times.  One  may 
notice,  however,  as  of  special  significance  the  decisive 
break  of  leading  archaeologists,  as  Sayce,  Hommel,  Halevy, 
Ditlef-Nielson,  with  the  Wellhausen  theory,  which  most 
of  them  had  earlier  accepted. 

My  own  conviction  is  that  there  is  at  the  present 
moment  a  considerable  and  growing  amount  of  distrust  of 
the  methods  and  conclusions  of  the  reigning  critical 
school  in  the  minds  of  both  clergy  and  laity  in  our  own 
country.  It  is  but  a  straw  showing  which  way  the  wind 
blows,  but  one- cannot  but  be  interested  in  the  statement 
made  by  Dr.  Robertson  Nicoll  in  his  notice  of  the  late 
Dr.  George  Matheson,  that,  after  a  period  of  sanguine 
acceptance  of  the  processes  and  results  of  the  Higher 
Criticism,  as  expounded  by  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith,  and  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  "he  came,"  in  later  life,  "to 
disbelieve  in  the  Higher  Criticism  and  in  the  doctrine  of 
evolution — at  least  in  its  extreme  form."* 

It  is,  however,  something  far  more  wide-reaching  I 
have  in  view  in  the  remark  just  made  as  to  impending 
revolutionary  changes  in  critical  opinion.  The  truth  is, 
the  placards  are  again  changing,  and  a  new  school  has 
already  arisen — the  so-called 

"  HISTORICAL-CRITICAL  "   SCHOOL, 

which  is  gathering  to  it  the  younger  generation  of  scholars, 
and  which  in  its  heart  regards  Wellhausenism  as  pretty 
much  obsolete.     It  is  not  on  that  account  more  believing, 
*  British  Weekly \  Sept.  6,  1906. 

19 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

but  is  in  some  respects  more  destructive:  yet  its  critical 
positions  show  a  marked  return  in  a  conservative  direc- 
tion. I  might" illustrate  from  H.  Gunkel,  the  influential 
Professor  at  Berlin,  but  prefer  to  take  a  single  example 
from  an  address  delivered  recently  at  a  conference  at 
Eisenach,  by  the  learned  Orientalist,  Hugo  Winckler,*  a 
leading  representative  of  this  tendency.  This  remarkable 
address  is  nothing  less  than  a  vigorous  assault  on  the 
whole  foundation  of  the  Wellhausen  theory  of  the  religion 
of  Israel,  in  its  advance  from  a  tribal  god  to  ethical 
monotheism  in  the  age  of  the  prophets,  and  in  its  alleged 
successive  stages  of  nomad  religion,  agricultural  religion, 
prophetic  religion,  and  legal  religion.  Winckler  assails 
the  theory  root  and  branch,  and  boldly  declares  that 
there  has  been  no  "  development "  of  the  kind.  He 
decisively  rejects  the  cardinal  Wellhausen  tenet  of  the 
origin  of  the  Levitical  Law  in  the  exile,  and  contends 
that  "  law  and  prophets  "  must  have  been  present  from 
the  beginning.  He  mentions  that  he  also  is  here  recant- 
ing an  earlier  view.  Here  is  a  revolution,  indeed — one 
prophetic  of  much  more.  In  how  curious  a  light,  after 
such  a  pronouncement,  appears  the  talk  about  "  settled 
results !  " 

(4)  One  other  circumstance  I  would  mention  as  tending 
to  a  recoil  in  many  minds  from  the  prevalent  methods  in 
Old  Testament  Criticism,  and  I  refer  to  it  only  in  a  word. 
It  is  the  spectacle  afforded  in  recent  works  of  what  these 
methods  really  mean  when  applied  with  like  unflinching 
boldness  to  the  documents  and  history  of 

THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

It  is  a  remarkable  feature  in  the  existing  critical  situation 
•Since  published  under  the  clumsy  title  of  Religionsgeschichtlicher 
unci  qeschichtlicher  Orient,  and  described  as  a  testing  of  the  presup- 
positions of  the  Wellhausen  School  on  the  basis  of  Marti's  book  on 
The  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament. 

20 


The  Present  Day  Trial  of  the  Bible 

that  the  critics,  having  apparently  sucked  their  orange 
well-nigh  dry  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  now  precipitating 
themselves  in  increasing  numbers  on  the  New  Testament, 
with  the  result  that  its  texts,  narratives,  and  portraiture 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  of  the  early  Church,  are  being 
subjected  to  the  same  treatment  as  had  laid  in  ruins  the 
patriarchal  and  Mosaic  history. 

Here,  however,  the  matter  touches  the  Christian  con- 
science too  closely.  Abraham  and  Moses  may  go  in 
fidelity  to  the  historical  method,  but  if  Christ  is  to  be 
taken  away,  there  is  a  start  of  shocked  surprise.  A  halt 
must  be  called,  and  the  methods  that  lead  to  such  a  result 
must  be  carefully  looked  into  !  Here  the  new  historical- 
critical  method  is  in  its  element,  with  its  comparative 
mythology,  and  reduction  of  the  narratives  of  the 
Nativity  and  Resurrection  into  legends. 

One  is  interested  in  this  connection  to  see  the  strenuous 
protest  being  made  by  so  convinced  an  Old  Testament 
critic  as  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  in  defence  of  the  Virgin 
Birth.  Again,  perhaps,  only  a  straw,  but  a  significant 
one.  This  rejuvenation  of  assault  upon  the  New 
Testament  will  also  occupy  us  later. 

SCOPE    OF  THE    PAPERS. 

The  purpose  and  scope  of  the  papers  collected  in 
this  volume  will  now,  I  hope,  be  sufficiently  apparent. 
Written  from  the  standpoint  of  assured  faith  in  the 
revelation  of  God  in  the  Scriptures,  they  are  intended  to 
remove  disquietude,  confirm  faith,  and  set  forth  con- 
siderations which  may  serve  to  show  that,  severe  as  the 
trial  is  to  which  the  Bible  is  at  present  subjected,  it  will 
emerge  from  the  ordeal,  as  heretofore,  unscathed,  and 
may  be  depended  on  to  retain  its  place  in  the  devout 
regard  of  Christian  people,  as  the  repository  of  the  living 
oracles  of  God  for  the  guidance  and  salvation  of  mankind, 

21 


II 
An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 


An    Instructive 
Object-Lesson 

THE  past  is  a  great  instructor  as  to  the  power  that 
resides  in  the  Bible  to  survive  the  assaults  made 
upon  it  even  by  the  most  skilful  adversaries.  I 
referred  in  the  previous  paper  to  the  keen  literary 
attacks  made  on  Christianity  by  its  pagan  opponents  in 
the  second  century.  A  special  object  of  assault  was  the 
Gospels.  One  of  the  most  keen-witted  of  these  assailants 
was  the  clever  Epicurean, 

CELSUS, 

of  whom  the  German  Baur  does  not  hesitate  to  say  :  "  In 
acuteness,  in  dialectical  aptitude,  in  many-sided  culture, 
at  once  philosophical  and  general,  Celsus  stands  behind 
no  opponent  of  Christianity."*  His  book  called  The  True 
Word — abundant  extracts  from  which  are  preserved  to  us 
by  Origen — is,  in  its  way,  a  masterpiece  of  attack  upon 
the  Evangelic  records.  It  is  the  book  of  a  man  of  undeni- 
able acuteness,  of  wide  reading,  of  philosophic  culture,  of 
exceptional  literary  ability,  who,  after  a  minute  study  of 
the  Christian  writings,  of  deliberate  purpose  sets  himself 
to  assail,  undermine,  and  overthrow  Christianity  by  all 
the  resources  of  knowledge,  argument  and  raillery  at  his 
command.  Scarcely  anything  escapes  his  eye  of  which  a 
point  could  be  made  against  the  new  faith.  Yet  the  book 
*Church  History  of  First  Three  Centuries,  II.,  p.  141. 

25 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

failed  !  So  far  as  we  can  see,  it  had  absolutely  not  the 
slightest  effect  in  stopping  the  triumphant  progress  of 
Christianity  in 'the  Empire.  It  is  doubtful  if  we  should 
ever  have  heard  of  its  existence  but  for  the  fact  that 
Origen  in  the  following  century  composed  a  reply  to  it. 

And  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  Mockery  and 
ridicule  were  no  effective  weapons  against  the  holy  power 
which  men  felt  had  entered  the  world  in  the  religion  of 
Jesus  Christ.  Christian  men  and  women  needed  no 
argument  to  refute  Celsus.  They  knew  from  their  own 
experience  that  he  did  not  do  justice  to  their  books,  their 
religion,  their  morality,  their  lives.  He  might  see 
nothing  of  the  transcendent  moral  and  spiritual  glory  of 
the  Christian  Gospel,  but  others  were  not  so  blind.  His 
spirit  would  not  attract  them  where  Christ's  failed.  He 
might  cavil  and  misrepresent,  but  he  had  no  substitute 
to  offer  for  the  salvation  which  men  knew  Christ  had 
brought  them. 

The  case  of  Celsus  is  typical,  and  preludes  the  whole 
history  of  the  conflict  of  faith  with  unbelief. 

VOLTAIRE 

was  the  keenest  and  most  unsparing  assailant  of  the 
Bible  in  the  eighteenth  century.  He  is  credited  with  the 
saying  that  it  took  twelve  men  to  found  Christianity,  but 
he  would  show  the  world  that  one  man  was  sufficient  to 
overthrow  it.  Proud  but  vain  boast !  The  Bible  which 
Voltaire  laboured  to  destroy  holds  on  its  career  of  con- 
quest unchecked.  The  records  of  Bible  societies  show  that 
last  year  (1905)  was  actually  the  largest  in  the  circulation 
of  the  sacred  volume  ever  attained.  But  Voltaire's  own 
books — some  score  or  two  of  them — stand  piled,  dust- 
laden,  on  the  shelves ;  and  save  for  some  literary  or 
historical  purpose,  who  ever  thinks  of  consulting  them  ? 
Why,  again,  this  difference  ?     Simply  because  the  Bible 

26 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

has  a   message  for  the  world,  which    the  world  feels  it 
needs  ;  Voltaire's  books  had  not. 

I. 

These  are  instances  from  centuries  gone  by.  I  propose 
now  in  this  paper  to  sketch  the  history  of  a  school  of 
criticism  in  the  immediate  past,  which  has,  I  think, 
valuable  instruction  for  us  in  the  present  time  of  trial  for 
the  Bible,  and  is,  besides,  in  important  ways,  linked  with 
living  controversies.  I  refer  to  the  famous  historical  and 
critical  school  commonly  known  as 

THE   TUBINGEN   SCHOOL, 

from  its  connection  with  Ferdinand  Chr.  Baur,  Professor 
in  that  University.  It  was  a  New  Testament,  not  an  Old 
Testament,  school,  but  its  lessons  are  as  applicable  to  the 
one  school  of  criticism  as  to  the  other.  It  had  a  great 
prestige  about  the  middle  of  last  century,  attracted  to 
itself  a  band  of  able  scholars — men  like  Schwegler,  Zeller, 
Hilgenfeld,  A.  Ritschl — and  ruled  the  critical  world  for 
over  a  generation.  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  became  a  con- 
vert to  it,  and  advocated  its  theories  in  this  country.  It 
proclaimed  itself,  in  the  usual  style,  to  be  the  "critical," 
as  opposed  to  the  "  uncritical  "  view*,  and  looked  with 
scorn  on  those  who  rejected  its  conclusions.  Its 
temporary  vogue  markedly  resembled  that  of  the  Well- 
hausen  school  to-day.  Yet  little  by  little  its  influence 
ebbed,  till  now  the  tide  is  completely  turned,  and  hardly 
any  among  critical  writers  is  found  so  poor  as  to  do  it 
reverence.  A  glance  at  the  fortunes  of  such  a  school  can 
scarcely  fail  to  be  educative. 

*Baur  says  in  a  note  in  his  Church  History  :  "  Here,  if  anywhere,  is 
a  conflict  of  principles,  which  cannot  be  carried  further.  The  two 
views  simply  confront  each  other  as  the  critical  view  and  the  un- 
critical."    (I.,  p.  53. 

27 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Baur,  the  founder  of  this  school,  was  a  man  of  great 
learning,  ability,  and  conscientiousness,  and  had  a  power 
which  few  have  surpassed  of  giving  a  novel  theory  a  look 
of  plausibility,  and  even  of  demonstration.  His  theory, 
like  Wellhausen's,  fascinated  by  the  skill  with  which  it 
grouped  its  materials  in  support  of  a  central  thesis,  and 
by  the  easy  key  it  seemed  to  afford  to  many  difficult 
phenomena  in  the  Apostolic  and  post-Apostolic  ages  of 
the  Church. 

Briefly  stated,  the  theory  turns  on 

ONE   GREAT   ANTITHESIS, 

which  is  the  pillar  of  the  whole — the  alleged  existence  of 
Petrine  and  Pauline  parties,  in  conflict  with  each  other, 
in  the  early  Church.  We  look  in  vain,  Baur  thinks,  for  a 
correct  picture  of  early  Christianity  in  the  Book  of  Acts, 
which  is  a  composition  of  the  second  century,  written 
expressly  for  the  purpose  of  glozing  over  the  differences 
between  the  original  Apostles  and  Paul.  The  true  state 
of  matters  is  mirrored  in  the  contemporary,  and  un- 
doubtedly authentic,  Epistles  of  Paul — of  which  he 
acknowledges  four,  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  I.  and 
II.  Corinthians,  and  Romans — just  as,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment school,  we  are  taken  for  our  starting-point  from  the 
historical  books  to  the  prophets,  or  such  portions  of  them 
as  the  critics  are  pleased  to  allow  to  be  genuine.  Here, 
and  in  the  Apocalypse,  accepted  as  a  work  of  the  Apostle 
John,  we  see  the  Church  rent  by  a  schism  which 
threatened  its  very  existence.  The  primitive  believers  at 
Jerusalem  were  far  from  having  the  enlightened  views 
ascribed  to  them  in  the  Book  of  Acts.  They  were  rather 
Jews  of  the  most  exclusive  type,  who  differed  from  the 
rest  of  their  countrymen  only  in  believing  that  the 
Messiah  had  already  appeared  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
and  who  thought  of  nothing  less  than  of  breaking  with 

28 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

Judaism  or  relaxing  the  obligations  of  the  Mosaic 
law. 

When,  now,  Gentile  Churches  were  founded,  it  was  in- 
evitable that  a  conflict  should  arise.  Stephen,  the 
Hellenist,  was  the  precursor  of  the  new  doctrine :  but  it 
was 

PAUL'S   LABOURS, 

and  his  success  in  founding  churches  among  the  Gentiles, 
which  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  Jews  came  from 
Judaea  to  Antioch,  insisting  on  the  circumcision  of  the  new 
converts  as  a  condition  of  salvation  (Acts  xv.  i).  This 
Paul  and  the  Gentile  Christians  strenuously  resisted.  To 
try  to  come  to  some  understanding  on  the  subject,  Paul 
and  Barnabas  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  meet  with  the 
original  Apostles.  The  Book  of  Acts,  in  the  account  it 
gives  of  the  great  Council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.),  repre- 
sents the  older  Apostles  as  on  the  side  of  Paul  in  principle 
— a  representation,  according  to  Baur,  completely  con- 
tradicted by  the  narrative  in  Gal.  ii.,  which,  besides, 
knows  nothing  of  a  public  meeting,  and  speaks  only  of  a 
private  interview  with  the  three  of  chief  repute,  Peter, 
John,  and  James,  the  Lord's  brother.  It  is  quite  a 
mistake,  Baur  holds,  to  suppose  that  the  so-called 
"  Judaizers"  were  only  a  troublesome  party  or  faction  in 
the  Church,  and  that  the  original  Apostles  had  no 
sympathy  with  their  movement.     The  real  heads  of 

THE   OPPOSITION   TO   PAUL, 

according  to  his  reading  of  the  facts,  were  the  original 
Apostles  themselves.  In  his  own  words  :  "  Who  were 
the  opponents  to  whom  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  to  offer 
so  strenuous  a  resistance  ?  Who  else  than  the  elder 
Apostles  themselves."* 
*  Church  History,  I.,  p.  52. 

29 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

The  result  of  the  conference  with  the  Three,  on  Baur's 
theory,  was  a  patched  up  agreement,  according  to  which 
each  went  his  own  way,  without  any  real  harmony  in 
principle.  This  became  evident  shortly  after,  when  Peter 
came  to  Antioch,  and  a  collision  occurred  between  him 
and  Paul.  Peter,  influenced  by  his  surroundings,  had  so 
far  modified  his  Jewish  strictness,  and  had  begun  to  eat 
with  the  Gentiles.  This  continued  till  a  deputation  came 
from  James  at  Jerusalem  (Gal.  ii.  12),  when  heat  once 
returned  to  his  former  practice,  and  drew  down  upon  him 
the  sharp  rebuke  of  Paul.  According  to  Baur,  Peter  and 
Paul  never  after  this  were  reconciled,  and  the  Jewish 
legalists,  on  their  side,  never  forgot  the  slight  put  on  their 
great  Apostle. 

From  this  conflict  at  Antioch  dates 

THE   FINAL   BREAK 

of  Paul  with  the  Jewish  party.  Thenceforth  they  set 
themselves,  still  with  the  concurrence  of  the  older 
Apostles,  to  oppose  and  frustrate  Paul  wherever  he  went. 
In  Galatia  they  succeeded  in  subverting  his  work,  and 
in  bringing  back  his  converts  to  circumcision  and  the  law. 
In  Corinth  they  introduced  divisions,  and  set  up  a 
Petrine  as  against  a  Pauline  party,  which  boldly 
challenged  Paul's  right  to  regard  himself  as  an  Apostle  at 
all.  These  opponents,  as  Paul  admits,  brought  with 
them  "letters  of  commendation"  (2  Cor.  iii.  1).  The 
Apocalypse  is  interpreted  as  breathing  throughout  an 
unmistakable  spirit  of  hostility  to  Paul,  who  is  declared 
to  be  expressly  excluded  in  the  mention  of  "the  twelve 
Apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  whose  names  are  in  the  founda- 
tions of  the  holy  city  (Rev.  xxi.  14).  The  Book  of  Acts, 
written  towards  the  middle  of  the  next  century,  seeks  to 
conceal  this  chasm  ;  but  even  in  it,  it  is  said,  the  traces 
of  this  fierce  controversy  cannot  be  altogether   effaced. 

30 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

According  to  its  own  showing,  the  first  Apostles  made 
no  attempt  to  carry  out  any  mission  to  the  Gentiles  ; 
Paul  met  with  keen  opposition  in  his  work  at  Antioch 
and  elsewhere ;  and  when  at  length  he  returned  for  the 
last  time  to  Jerusalem,  he  was  met  by  the  statement  of 
James:  "Thou  seest,  brother,  how  many  thousands  there 
are  among  the  Jews  of  them  which  have  believed  ;  and 
they  are  all  zealous  for  the  law  "  (Acts  xxi.  20).  Here, 
it  is  contended,  we  have  pictured  the  true  state  of  the 
case:  a  church  at  Jerusalem  composed  of  zealots  for  the 
law ;  Paul,  on  the  other  hand,  preaching  freedom  from  the 
law ;  and  between  the  two  parties,  a  bitter  and  irrecon- 
cilable opposition ! 

The  tension  thus  created,  however,   could  not  remain 
permanent,  and  we  have  next,  according  to  Baur, 

NEW   DEVELOPMENTS 

tending  to  lessen  the  sharpness  of  the  opposition,  and  to 
draw  the  parties  closer  together.  Approximations  began 
to  be  made  on  either  side,  the  stages  of  which  reflect 
themselves  in  the  literary  products  of  the  time.  Gospels 
and  Epistles  were  composed  from  a  party  point  of  view, 
each  seeking  to  commend  its  own  standpoint,  and  to  con- 
ciliate opponents.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  e.g.,  repre- 
sents a  modified  Jewish  standpoint :  the  Gospel  of  Luke 
and  the  Acts  are  Pauline,  but  written  in  the  interests  of 
conciliation  ;  Mark  is  a  neutral  Gospel,  based  on  Matthew 
and  Luke  (the  newer  criticism  precisely  reverses  this 
relation)  ;  Epistles  like  Ephesians  and  Colossians  repre- 
sent the  same  conciliatory  tendency ;  while,  finally,  the 
Gospel  of  John  brings  up  the  rear,  with  its  Christian 
Gnosticism,  pointing  to  a  date  somewhere  between 
a.d.  160  and  170.  I  need  not  follow  the  further  steps 
by  which,  in  Baur's  view,  after  mutual  concession,  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christianity  got  blended  together  towards 

3i 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

the  end  of  the  second  century  in  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
Church. 

Such  in  its  main  features  was  Baur's  theory  of  the 
Apostolic  age,  stated  and  defended  with  marvellous 
acuteness,  and  wrought  out  with  undeniable  plausibility 
and  skill.     For  a  time,  as  I  have  said,  it 

QUITE   CAPTIVATED 

the  advanced  spirits  in  theology,  just  as  the  Wellhausen 
theoty  is  doing  now.  The  method  seemed  the  right  one 
— to  start,  not  with  documents  of  a  later,  or  at  least  un- 
certain age,  but  with  undoubtedly  contemporary,  first- 
hand writings ;  the  proofs  seemed  clear — the  contra- 
dictions between  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians ; 
the  antagonism  of  Paul  to  the  Three,  as  shown  in  the 
same  Epistle ;  the  emissaries  who  came  from  James  to 
Antioch,  and  compelled  Peter  to  renounce  his  more 
liberal  practice ;  the  conflicts  with  the  Judaizers  in 
Galatia  and  other  churches  ;  the  Petrine  party  in  Corinth, 
and  the  "  letters  of  recommendation  "  they  brought  with 
them,  evidently  from  some  influential  quarters  ;  the  fact 
that  the  early  Apostles  themselves  never  attempted  a 
Gentile  mission  ;  the  thousands  of  Jews  who  believed, 
who  were  all  zealous  for  the  law,  in  Jerusalem — how 
could  it  be  doubted  that  the  true  key  had  been  found  to 
the  many  perplexing  phenomena  in  the  Apostolic  age 
which  the  old  theory  ignored,  and  that  the  eyes  of  the 
world  had  at  length  been  opened  to  the  actual  course  of 
events  in  that  greatly  misunderstood  period?  The  Well- 
hausen theory  of  "the  three  Codes,"  as  the  key  to  the 
religious  history  of  Israel,  could  not  be  clearer  ! 

II. 

What  now,  it  is  instructive  to  inquire,  has  been 

THE   VERDICT   OF   HISTORY 

on  this  ingenious  and  imposing  theory,  promulgated  by 

32 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

Baur  with  so  much  eclat?  I  have  already  hinted  that  it 
has  not  been  favourable,  but  it  is  well  to  watch  the  pro- 
cess. The  theory,  as  above  sketched,  was  not  long  able 
to  hold  the  field  in  its  integrity.  After  a  little  time  had 
been  given  for  consideration,  it  became  evident  to 
unprejudiced  minds  that  it  had  at  least  been  pushed 
much  too  far,  and  that,  in  the  form  in  which  Baur  had 
presented  it,  it  was  little  more  than  a  caricature  of  early 
Christianity.  Some  of  Baur's  ablest  disciples,  accord- 
ingly, ere  long  felt  themselves  compelled  to  part  company 
with  their  master  on  essential  points,  and  gradually  the 
party  was  under  the  necessity  of  greatly  retracting  its 
position  as  a  whole.  Two  causes,  mainly,  led  to  this 
result: — 

(i)  It  was  soon  seen,  and  had  to  be  acknowledged, 
that,  granting  him  his  own  data,  Baur  had  greatly  over- 
driven the  evidence,  and  that 

ON    PURELY   HISTORICAL   GROUNDS 

his  contentions  could  not  be  maintained.  It  was  early 
pointed  out,  e.g.,  by  Lechler,  that  the  text  in  Gal.  ii.  I, 
2,  so  far  from  confining  Paul's  visit  to  a  private  confer- 
ence, expressly  implies  the  larger  meeting  with  the 
Church.  "  I  went  up  again,"  Paul  says,  "to  Jerusalem 
.  .  .  and  laid  before  them  the  Gospel  which  I  preach 
.  .  .  but  privately  before  them  of  repute,"  &c.  Here 
"  them,"  in  the  connection,  can  only  be  the  believers  in 
Jerusalem,  the  Church  itself,  and  the  "  but  "  marks  the 
transition  to  a  private  interview.  Lechler  in  this  had 
the  rare  good  fortune  of  convincing  his  opponents,  for  the 
point  he  raised  has  been  conceded  by  Zeller,  Holsten, 
Ritschl,  Pfleiderer,  Reuss,  and  most  others. 

It  is  not  otherwise  with  the  alleged  opposition  between 
Paul  and  the  Three  in  Gal.  ii.  It  has  long  been  shown 
that  this  chapter,  so  far   from    proving   antagonism    in 

33  D 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

principle,  proves  agreement.  Paul  speaks  of  "  false 
brethren  privily  brought  in  "  (ver.  4),  but  the  very  mention 
of  "  privily  "  'shows  that  they  were  not  a  majority  in  the 
Church  ;  and  the  express  statement  of  the  chapter  is  that 
when  the  Three  heard  Paul's  account  of  his  work,  they 
gave  to  him  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
(ver.  9).  Here  again  there  has  come  about  a  consensus  of 
leading  critics,  as  Holsten,  Ritschl,  Reuss,  Pfleiderer,  &c. 

It  is  evident  again,  in  Gal.  ii.  11,  12,  that  in  withdraw- 
ing from  eating  with  the  Gentiles,  Peter  was  acting  in 
weakness,  against  his  own  better  convictions  ;  and  the 
after  hostility  of  Peter  to  Paul  is  a  simple  myth,  now  also 
generally  abandoned.  Among  other  indications  in  the 
history,  an  undeniable  evidence  of  the  good  feeling  which 
subsisted  between  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  and  the 
Pauline  Church  is  the  collection  for  the  poor  saints  in 
Judaea,  with  which  Paul  so  honourably  busied  himself.* 

But  (2)  there  was  yet  another  cause  which  inevitably  led 
to  the  abandoment  of  the  extreme  positions  of  Baur,  viz., 

THE  PROGRESS  OF  CRITICISM 

itself.     Baur's   school  was   nothing  if  not  critical.t     It 

*  Difficulty  has  been  raised  as  to  the  silence  of  the  later  history  and 
the  epistles  on  the  "decree"  of  the  Jerusalem  Council  (Acts  xv. 
23  ft).  A.  Ritschl  (in  the  work  named  below)  has  probably  given  the  true 
explanation  in  showing  that,  in  the  conditions,  the  "decree"  neces- 
sarily fell  early  into  desuetude.  The  decision  of  the  Council  was  of 
the  nature  of  a  compromise.  It  settled  that  circumcision  was  not  to 
be  enforced  in  the  Gentiles  ;  it  was  not  settled  whether  Jews  were  at 
liberty  to  dispense  with  the  customs  of  their  nation.  The  difference 
on  this  point  was  one  bound  to  emerge  in  mixed  Churches — 
especially  in  eating  (Gal.  ii.  11-14).  The  question  of  principle,  once 
raised,  could  only  be  settled  in  the  interests  of  a  liberty  which  made 
the  "  decree  "  obsolete. 

+  In  the  opening  of  his  book  on  Paul,  Baur  says  :  "  It  may  be 
justly  said  of  the  present  age  that  its  prevailing  tendency  is  critical. 

.  .  Thought  has  now,  after  the  laborious  toil  of  many  centuries, 
emancipated  itself,  and  thrown  away  its  crutches."    This  was  in  1845. 

34 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

was  with  critical  weapons  its  battles  were  fought,  and  on 
critical  grounds  it  claimed  acceptance.  But  it  was  just 
here,  by  the  continuous  application  of  the  same  methods, 
that  the  leading  postulates  of  the  school  were  overthrown. 
It  was  an  easy  way  to  gain  a  victory  to  make  a  clean 
sweep  of  nearly  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
thrusting  them  down  to  the  second  century — Old  Testa- 
ment criticism  substitutes  the  Exile — and  accounting  for 
them  by  deliberate  use  of  fiction.  Yet  if  this  was  not 
done,  the  theory  would  not  stand  for  an  hour.  The  late 
date  of  the  New  Testament  writings  is  not  an  accident, 
but  an  essential  part  of  Baur's  theory — so,  too,  in  Old 
Testament  theories — yet  the  progress  of  the  same  careful, 
thorough  criticism  which,  be  it  conceded,  his  own  school 
did  so  much  to  foster,  has  rendered  it  impossible  to 
maintain  this  late  date  for  the  documents  on  which  he 
founds.  With  this,  as  an  invaluable  auxiliary — the  Old 
Testament  parallel  here  is  archaeology — has  gone 

THE   PROGRESS   OF   DISCOVERY, 

compelling  in  many  instances  the  driving  back  of  the 
date  of  the  New  Testament  books  to  a  much  earlier 
period  than  Baur  would  allow.  Baur,  in  other  words, 
needed  for  his  purpose  to  make  a  clean  sweep  of  the  great 
bulk  of  the  literature  of  the  New  Testament ;  criticism 
and  discovery  combined  to  show  that  this  could  not  be 
done.  One  by  one  Paul's  Epistles  have  had  to  be  given 
back  to  him,  till  it  is  chiefly  on  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  in 
whole  or  part,  that,  in  advanced  circles,  doubt  is  permitted 
to  rest ;  the  first  three  Gospels  have  been  carried  back  by 
stringent  processes  of  criticism  to  dates  well  within  the 
Apostolic  age  ;  even  the  Gospel  of  John  is  put  by  the 
opponents  of  its  genuineness — a  diminishing  number — 
fully  half  a  century  earlier  than  Baur  would  acknow- 
ledge.    More  will  be  said  of  this  revolution  in  opinion 

35 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

immediately;  I  take   here   only   an    instance   or  two   in 
illustration  of  the  effect  of  discovery. 
Baur  would  fain  put  the 

GOSPEL   OF  JOHN 

down  to  about  a.d.  170.  But  in  1842  discovery  was  made 
of  a  long-lost  book  of  Hippolytus  (about  a.d.  200), 
A  Refutation  of  All  Heresies,  which  dealt  specifically 
with  the  Gnostic  systems  of  Basilides  and  Valentinus,  and 
made  it  perfectly  clear  that  these  systems  were  founded 
on  the  teaching  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  As  Basilides 
flourished  as  early  as  a.d.  125,  the  inference  was  obvious. 
Here  is  one  passage:  "And  this  he  [Basilides]  says  is 
that  which  has  been  stated  in  the  Gospels,  '  He  was  the 
true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world.'  "  No  candid  mind  will  deny  that  this  quotation 
is  from  John  i.  9.  Another  example.  In  a  curious  heretical 
production  of  the  middle  or  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  The  Clementine  Homilies,  there  were  numerous 
clear  references  to  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  some 
which  any  ordinary  mind  would  have  thought  clear 
enough  to  John  also.  It  did  not,  however,  suit  the  critics 
to  admit  this,  and  the  alleged  absence  of  any  references 
to  John  was  turned  into  an  argument  against  the 
existence  of  the  Gospel  before  a.d.  160.  Up  to  this  time 
the  MS.  was  imperfect,  the  last  homily,  and  half  of  the 
one  preceding,  being  wanting.  In  1853  a  complete  MS. 
of  the  Homilies  was  discovered,  and  there,  in  the  part 
formerly  missing,  was  a  reference  so  clear  to  the  story  of 
the  man  born  blind  in  John  ix,  that  doubt  was  no  longer 
possible,  and  the  critics  yielded  up  the  point.  The  more 
recent  discovery  of  translations  of  Tatian's  famous 
Diatessarofi,  or  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels,  made 
soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  at  once 
establishes  the   existence  of  that  Harmony — which  had 

36 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

been  keenly  disputed* — and  the  place  of  John's  Gospel 
in  it.  It  begins  with  the  sentence,  "  In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word  '    (John  i.  i). 

III. 

It  will  hardly,  now,  be  wondered  at,  that,  pressed  by 
these  difficulties,  the  school  beat  a  retreat.  A.  Ritschl, 
at  first  an  expounder  of  its  critical  views  (he  wrote  to 
prove  that  Marcion's  mutilated  Gospel  of  Luke  was 
probably  the  original — a  position  afterwards  surrendered), 
gradually  broke  with  its  positions,  and  finally,  in  1857,  in 
the  second  edition  of  his  book  on  The  Origin  of  the  Old 
Catholic  Church,  wrote  one  of  the  ablest  refutations  of  it. 

The  full  extent,  however,  of  the 

BREACH   OF   CRITICAL   SCHOLARS 

with  this  once-honoured  school,  is  only  seen  when 
we  come  down  to  recent  times. 

On  the  actual  situation  I  shall  cite  a  few  sentences 
from  one  who  will  not  be  regarded  as  unduly  biassed 
towards  conservatism — Prof.  A.  S.  Peake,  of  the 
University  of  Manchester.  In  a  recent  inaugural 
lecture  on  "  The  Present  Movement  of  Biblical  Science," 
Mr.  Peake  signalises  as  one  of  the  two  features  in  recent 
New  Testament  Introduction,  "  the  general  break  with 
the  Tubingen  tradition."!  He  remarks:  "All  that 
profound  learning  and  brilliant  genius  could  do  for  the 
theory  was  done  by  Baur  and  the  band  of  scholars  he 

*  As  by  the  author  of  the  book  called  Supernatural  Religion 
(W.  R.  Cassels). 

t  In  the  volume  entitled  Inaugural  Lectures  delivered  by  Members 
of  the  Faculty  of  Theology  during  its  First  Session,  1904-5.  Cf., 
PP-  49"53-  The  other  "feature"  Mr.  Peake  discerns  is  "  the  break  in 
England  with  the  Lightfoot  tradition,"  with  respect,  apparently,  to 
the  order  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  especially  Galatians, 

37 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

gathered  round  him."  But,  "  as  is  well  known,  this 
criticism  has  not  held  its  ground.  In  the  first  place,  it 
rested  too  much  on  a  theory  of  what  the  history  must 
have  been  not  to  have  presented  a  distorted  statement  of 
what  it  actually  is.  In  the  next  place  the  radical 
criticism  of  Baur  has  been  almost  entirely  abandoned 
by  those  who  would  now  be  regarded  as  radical  critics." 
The  theory  is  taken  piecemeal,  and  almost  all  its  con- 
tentions are  shown  to  be  now  surrendered.  E.g.,  "  With 
the  exception  of  Hilgenfeld,  practically  all  critics  are 
agreed  that  Mark  is  the  earliest  of  the  synoptists ;  in 
other  words,  what  Baur  declared  to  be  the  latest,  because 
the  most  neutral,  of  the  Gospels  is  now  placed  first  of 
all."  "  The  theory  entertained  by  this  school  as  to  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  has  also  been  abandoned  ;  the 
conciliatory  tendency  which  was  detected  in  it  is  seen  to 
have  been  greatly  exaggerated."  It  is  added  :  "  Apart 
from  this  abandonment  of  Baur's  New  Testament 
criticism,  there  are  other  objections  to  the  theory 
which  have  contributed  to  its  surrender." 

In  short,  no  shred  is  left  that  one  can  discern  of  the 
Tubingen  theory  at  all.  The  few  scholars  that  adhere  to 
it,  as  Van  Manen,  have  developed  its  criticism  "  into  an 
extremely  negative  form,"  leaving  "  not  a  single  New 
Testament  writing  to  its  traditional  author."*  Their 
exploits — "  the  delirium  of  hyper-criticism  " — awaken 
only  "  amazement."  I  agree,  but  wonder  in  turn,  that 
Mr.  Peake,  in  view  of  all  this,  should  write  as  confidently 

*  The  tendency  of  advanced  critics  either  to  revert  to  a  more 
conservative  position  or  go  off  into  extreme  negation,  receives 
continual  illustration  from  the  history  of  thought.  As  a  recent 
instance,  one  reads  that  Dr.  Lipsius,  of  Jena,  has  resigned  his 
chair  of  theology,  and  accepted  one  in  philosophy,  on  the  ground  that 
he  has  given  up  his  belief  in  Christianity,  and  desires  a  position  in 
which  he  will  be  free,  if  he  chooses,  to  antagonise  it. 

38 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

as  he  does  of  "  assured  results  "  in  the  field  of  Old 
Testament  criticism  (p.  32). 

IV. 

LATER   DISCUSSIONS. 

The  Tubingen  tradition  is  broken,  but  we  have  not 
yet  reached  the  end  of  our  developments.  To  abandon 
Baur's  view  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and  of  the  Book  of  Acts, 
was  not  yet  to  admit  Luke's  authorship  of  these  two 
works,  or  to  concede  to  them  a  high  historical  value.  It 
was  a  great  step  in  advance  when  Prof.  W.  M.  Ramsay, 
of  Aberdeen,  himself  formerly  an  adherent  of  the  Tubingen 
school,  came  out  some  years  ago  as  a  thorough-going 
defender  of  Luke's  title  to  the  rank  of  a  first-class 
historian.  The  Continent,  however,  seemed  compara- 
tively unmoved.  Now  there  is  a  change,  and  within  the 
last  few  months  criticism  has  received 

A   NEW   SURPRISE, 

and  something  not  unlike  a  shock  to  its  nerves,  by  the 
entrance  into  this  field  of  controversy  of  no  less  redoubt- 
able a  champion  of  the  traditional  view  of  Luke's  author- 
ship of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  than  the  brilliant  and 
learned  Prof.  A.  Harnack,  of  Berlin.* 

To  realise  the  significance  of  this  fact  one  has  first  to 
remember  that  the  non-Lucan  authorship  of  these  two 
works  was  a  point  which  "  criticism  "  had  entirely  settled 
to  its  own  satisfaction  long  ago — it  was  a  "  settled  result  " 
(as  much  so  as  the  Old  Testament  J,  E,  and  P) ;  and, 
next,  to  hear  what  Harnack  has  to  say,  not  only  on  this 
particular  question,  but  on  the  value  of  "  tradition,"  and 
on  modern  methods  of  criticism  in  general. 

*  In  his  book,  Lukas  der  Arzt,  der  Verfasser  des  dritten 
Evangeliums  und  der  Afiostelgeschichte  (Luke  the  Physician,  the 
Author  of  the  Third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles), 

39 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

On  the  first  point  it  is  worth  while  listening  to  a 
colleague  of  Harnack's,  Prof.  Schiirer,  apropos  of  this 
same  book,  if  only  to  note  the  reason  he  gives  for  reject- 
ing the  unity  of  the  Acts,  viz.,  its  unhistoricity.  "  The 
linguistic  unity  of  the  work,"  he  says,  "has  been  already 
hitherto  recognised,  and  still  all  representatives  of  a 
critical  view  of  things  were  at  one  in  holding  that  the 
author  of  the 'We'  source,  and  the  author  of  the  Acts, 
are  to  be  distinguished,  because  the  latter,  on  account  of 
the  glaring  marks  of  unhistoricity  in  his  work,  cannot  be 
a  companion  of  Paul,"*  "All  representatives" — "at 
one  " — "  cannot  be,"  how  familiar  are  the  phrases  !  But 
Harnack  is  not  dismayed,  and  does  not  bate  his  breath  in 
speaking  of  the  critics.  He  reckons  up  the  forces 
against  him,  and  thus  pictures  the  temper  of  the  reigning 
school :  "  In  spite  of  the  contradiction  of  Credner, 
B.  Weiss,  Klostermann,  Zahn,  &c,  the  untenableness  of 
the  tradition  [of  Luke's  authorship]  is  held  to  be  so  com- 
pletely established,  that  one  hardly  takes  the  trouble  any 
longer  to  prove  it,  or  even  to  give  any  attention  to  the 
arguments  of  opponents.  Indeed,  there  seems  no  longer 
a  willingness  to  recognise  that  such  arguments  exist. 
Jiilicher  believes  he  is  compelled  to  see  in  the  ascription 
of  the  book  to  Luke  only  '  an  adventurous  wish.'  So 
quickly  does  criticism  forget,  aud  in  so  partisan  a  spirit 
does  it  stiffen  itself  in  its  hypotheses!"  (p.  5).  "Can 
not,"  he  says  again,  "  Why  not  ?  Whence  have  we  so 
sure  a  knowledge  of  Apostolic  and  post-Apostolic  times, 
that  we  dare  oppose  our  '  knowing '  to  surely  attested 
facts  ?  "  (p.  87).  He  does  not  believe  there  ever  was  a 
separate  "  We  "  source  at  all. 

Harnack  claims,  accordingly,  in  his  Preface:  "  I  hope 
to  have  shown  in  the  following  pages  that  criticism  has 
gone  wrong,  and  that 

*  Literaturzeitungi  July  18,  1906. 

40 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

TRADITION    IS    RIGHT," 

and  he  reminds  his  readers  that  ten  years  ago  he  told 
them  that  "  in  the  criticism  of  the  sources  of  the  oldest 
Chistianity  we  are  in  a  movement  backward  to  tradition." 
"Something,"  he  says,  "has  certainly  been  won  back  in 
the  fact  that  we  are  able  to  circumscribe  more  precisely 
the  ground  and  the  time  of  the  oldest,  foundation-laying 
formation  of  tradition ;  by  which  not  a  few  wild 
hypotheses  are  excluded.  In  the  years  30-70 — and, 
indeed,  in  Palestine,  more  exactly  in  Jerusalem — everything 
really  came  into  being  and  happened,  of  which  what 
followed  was  simply  the  unfolding."*  (Italics  his.)  The 
third  chapter  of  his  book  is  headed:  "  On  the  Pretended 
Impossibility  of  Vindicating  the  Third  Gospel  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  for  Luke."  Harnack  was  never 
a  believer  in  the  Tubingen  theory,!  and  now  he 
sees  in  it  the  fundamental  error  in  New  Testament 
criticism.  "  All  mistakes  which  have  been  made  in  New 
Testament  criticism  gather  themselves  to  a  focus  in  the 
criticism  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  and  the  root-error 
is  Baur's  theory  of  the  relations  of  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christianity  (p.  87).  One  is  reminded  how  certain 
scholars  are  now  beginning  to  liken  Wellhausen's  dogma 
of  "  the  centralisation  of  worship  "  to  this  exploded  dogma 
of  the  Baur  school ! 

All  this  is  very  instructive.  The  cry  of  "  settled  results  "  ! 
The  proof  of  how  far  criticism,  when  most  sure  of  itself, 
can  go  astray  !  The  certainty  that  a  change  will  come, 
and  flouted  "  tradition  "  will  reassert  its  rights  !  How 
the  credit  of  books  most  assailed  is  by  and  by  rehabili- 

*  The  German  is— "In  den  Jahren  30-70 — und,  zwar  inPalds/ind, 
ndher  in  Jerusalem — ist  eigentlich  A  lies  geworden  und  geschehen. 
was  sich  nachher  entfaltet  hat." 

t  Cf.  his  History  of  Dogma.  I.,  p.  49 

41 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

tated !  We  seem  to  hear  the  echoes  of  Old  Testament 
discussion  at  every  step,  and  are  grateful  for  the  encour- 
agement the  retrospect  yields. 

LUKE   AS   HISTORIAN. 

Yet  Harnack,  while  assailing  the  critical  views  on 
Luke,  is  very  cautious  about  committing  himself  to  the 
entire  historicity  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  He  retains  his 
liberty  to  pick  what  holes  he  pleases  in  the  narrative  on 
its  historical  side.  His  own  demonstration  of  the  Lucan 
authorship,  and  of  the  soundness  of  the  sources  Luke 
employed,  will  make  it  increasingly  difficult  for  him  to  do 
this.  Here,  however,  Prof.  Ramsay  comes  to  the  rescue, 
and  on  the  question  of  fact  is  much  the  better  judge.  It 
was  not  the  application  of  literary  criticism  which 
convinced  Prof.  Ramsay  that  he  had  here  a 

FIRST-CLASS   HISTORICAL   SOURCE. 

His  calling  took  him  to  Asia  Minor  on  exploration  wor 
and  in  the  course  of  his  researches  he  was  so  much  im- 
pressed with  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  Book  of  Acts 
that  it  led  him  bit  by  bit  to  recast  his  whole  opinion,  and 
he  has  now  become  one  of  the  ablest  defenders  of  Luke's 
accuracy  as  a  historian.  In  addition  to  his  works  on 
Paul,  he  has  written  a  very  able  defence  of  the  narrative 
of  the  Nativity  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke.* 

V. 

It  would  unduly  extend  this  paper  to  go  into  many 
details,  but  one  illustration  may  perhaps  be  given  of 

THE   EXTREME    CAREFULNESS 

of  Luke's  statements  in  Acts.     I  choose  the  example  of 
his  references  to  governors.     It  will  be  remembered  that, 
*  See  page  45. 

4* 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

in  giving  an  account  of  Paul's  visit  to  Cyprus,  Luke 
introduces  us  to  a  Sergius  Paulus,  "  proconsul "  of  that 
island  (Acts  xiii.  7).  A  proconsul  was  a  yearly  officer, 
representing  the  Roman  Senate.  But  Cyprus,  in  the 
time  of  Augustus,  had  been  an  imperial  province,  governed 
by  a  different  class  of  officials,  "  propraetors."  How,  then, 
comes  Luke  to  give  the  governor  the  title  "  proconsul  ?  " 
An  ancient  historian  solves  the  difficulty  by  telling  us  that 
Augustus  handed  Cyprus  over  to  the  Roman  Senate  in  ex- 
change for  another  province,  so  that,  in  the  words  of  the 
historian,  "  proconsuls  began  to  be  sent  into 

THAT   ISLAND 

also."*  The  fact  is  further  established  by  a  coin  represent- 
ing a  Cyprian  proconsul  of  this  very  reign  of  Claudius. 

A  similar,  yet  more  singular  proof  of  Luke's  accuracy 
occurs  a  chapter  or  two  further  on.  Luke  calls  Gallio 
"  proconsul  of  Achaia  "  (Acts  xviii.  12).  Now  Achaia  had 
been  governed  by  "  proconsuls,"  but  Tiberius  had  made 
it  an  imperial  province,  governed  by  "  propraetors  "  ;  and 
so  it  had  remained  till  five  or  six  years  before  the  time  of 
which  Luke  speaks,  when  the  Emperor  Claudius  restored 
the  province  to  the  Senate.  Then  proconsuls  began 
again ;  and  Luke  is  perfectly  exact. 

But  may  not  the  explanation  be  that  Luke  had  the 
loose  habit  of  calling  all  governors  "  proconsuls,"  and  so 
got  right  by  chance  ?  No ;  for  when  we  come  to 
Thessalonica  we  find  Luke  using  another  name  altogether, 
the  name  "  politarchs"  (Acts  xvii.  6,  8).  The  title,  singular 
to  say,  is  found  nowhere  in  literature  but  in  this  chapter. 
But  here  discovery  comes  in  to  supplement  what  history 
does  not  tell.  An  inscription  is  still  legible  on  an 
arch  of  Thessalonica,  which  gives  this  very  title  to  the 
magistrates  of  the  place,  informs  us  of  their  number,  and 

*  Dio  Cassius,  liii.  12  ;  liv.  9. 

43 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

mentions  the  names  of  some  who  bore  the  office  not  long 
before  the  days  of  Paul. 

The  last  example  I  take  relates  to  Paul's  stay  in 
Malta.  Here,  Luke  says,  were  "lands  belonging  to  the 
chief  man  of  the  island,  named  Publius  "  (Acts  xxviii.  7). 
The  word,  translated  "chief  man  "  is  literally  "  protos." 
Now,  as  has  been  ascertained  from  inscriptions  found  in 
the  island,  "  protos  "  was  the  (probably)  official  title  of  the 
governor  of  Malta,  and  Luke  designates  him  accordingly.* 

Such  instances  of  minute  accuracy  are  worth  a  bushel 
of  literary  arguments  in  proof  that  the  author  of  the  Acts 
was  a  man  well  versed  in  the  contemporary  history,  and 
had  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts  he  wrote  about. 

Thus  much  for  Acts.  I  add  one  illustration,  in  conclu- 
sion, from 

THE   GOSPEL. 

Perhaps  the  strongest  case  of  inaccuracy  objectors  have 
ever  been  able  to  urge  against  the  Gospels  is  the  mention 
of  Quirinius  in  Luke  ii.  2  :  "  This  was  the  first  enrolment 
made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria  "  (R.V.).  It 
is  the  same  Luke  who  wrote  the  Acts  who  makes  this 
statement,  and  the  accuracy  he  shows  on  other  occasions 
might  warn  us  not  to  assume  too  hastily  that  he  was  in 
error  here.  Yet  there  did  seem  to  be  something  like  a 
mistake.  It  is  quite  true,  as  we  know  from  Josephus, 
that  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria,  and  that  he 
conducted  a  census  of  Judaea,  but  this  was  ten  years  later 
(a.d.  6).  It  was,  indeed,  pointed  out  that  Luke  speaks  of 
it  as  "  a  first  enrolment,"  and  this  of  itself  suggested  that 
he  knew  of  a  second  ;  still  the  difficulty  was  not  satisfac- 
torily solved. 

Meanwhile,  in  a  German  study,  a  learned  author, 
Augustus  W.  Zumpt,  was  working  away  at  a  book  on 

*  For  details  see  Conybeare  and   Howson,  or  Ramsay's  Paul  the 
Traveller. 

44 


An  Instructive  Object-Lesson 

Roman  antiquities,  in  the  course  of  which  he  was  led  to 
investigate  the  subject  of  the  Syrian  presidencies.  His 
treatment  was  purely  antiquarian  ;  yet  Zumpt,  working 
with  his  own  materials,  made  the  interesting  discovery, 
in  which  most  now  acquiesce,  that  Quirinius  must  have 
been  twice  governor  of  Syria,  once  in  B.C.  4-1,  and  again  in 
A.D.  6.  This  practically  solved  the  difficulty,  though  it 
still  put  the  first  governorship  a  year  too  late,  if  Christ's 
birth  is  correctly  dated  in  the  end  of  B.C.  5  ;  for  the  census 
may  well  have  been  begun  by  his  predecessor,  in  the 
end  of  his  term  of  office,  and  completed  under  Quirinius, 
with  whose  name  it  is  connected.  Indeed.  Prof.  Ramsay 
has  now  established  the  fact  of  such  periodical  enrol- 
ments, and  census-papers  from  Egypt  have  actually 
been  recovered.* 


*  See    his    Was  Christ  Born  in  Bethlehem  t      Prof.  Ramsay  has 
an  ingenious  hypothesis  of  his  own  about  governorship  and  dates. 

45 


Ill 
"Presuppositions"  in   Old 
Testament  Criticism 


"  Presuppositions '    in   Old 
Testament  Criticism 


I  HAVE  indicated  that  the  severest  trial  to  which  the 
Bible  has  been  subjected  in  recent  years  has  come 
from  the  side  of  Old  Testament  criticism.  To  this 
phase  of  the  trial,  therefore,  I  shall  now,  in  a  few 
papers,  address  myself.  So  wide  is  the  field,  and  so  com- 
plex the  subject,  that  it  will  be  understood  that  I  must 
content  myself  with  touching  only  the  larger  issues.  But 
I  shall  try  to  glance  at  most  of  these. 

I. 

"  The  Higher  Criticism,"  it  is  well  known,  professes  to 
dissect  the  Bible  into  its  elements  :  to  determine  approxi- 
mately the  dates  and  circumstances  of  the  composition 
of  its  component  parts;  then,  from  the  materials 
thus  analysed  and  readjusted,  to  construct  a  living 
picture  of  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  of 
the  development  of  their  religion,  laws,  and  institu- 
tions. 

It  has  already  been  made  clear  that  not  one  word  will 
be  said  in  these  papers  against 

LEGITIMATE     CRITICISM. 

Provided  it  be  done  reverently,  by  all  means  let  the  Bible 

49  E 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

be  subjected  to  the  most  careful  scrutiny  anyone  can 
apply  to  it  on  its  literary  and  historical  sides  ;  and  if  any 
light  breaks  out  from  the  process,  as,  under  God's 
guidance,  there  is  every  reason  to  hope  it  will,  let  it  be 
faithfully  followed,  even  if  old  ideas  and  time-honoured 
conclusions  have  to  some  extent  to  be  modified  or 
abandoned.  This  is  not,  indeed,  the  highest  way  of 
studying  the  Bible.  Taken  by  itself,  it  is  poor  fare,  this 
critical  business,  for  any  human  soul  to  nourish  itself 
upon.  Still,  criticism  has  its  rightful  and  necessary 
place,  and  I  have  not  been  stinted  elsewhere  in  my 
acknowledgment  of  the  gains  we  owe  to  it.  I  gladly  own 
that,  as  the  result  of  criticism,  many  things  in  the  Bible 
are  far  better  understood  than  they  were  before,  and  that 
the  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in  its 
historical  and  prophetical  parts,  has  undergone  a  remark- 
able freshening.  Only  it  is  fair  to  note  that  many  other 
causes  in  the  progress  of  knowledge  and  in  the  spirit  of 
the  time  have  contributed  to  this  result,  and  criticism 
must  not  be  allowed  to  carry  off  the  whole  credit  of  it. 
It  is  not,  therefore,  every  criticism,  but 

THIS   CRITICISM, 

which  has  for  many  years  almost  exclusively  usurped 
the  name,  which  is  impugned  as  injurious  to  faith.  It 
is  often  said,  when  attention  is  called  to  the  minute 
dissection  of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  and  to  theories  of 
age  and  authorship,  What,  after  all,  does  it  matter  ?  Is 
faith  bound  up  with  questions  of  doubtful  disputation  like 
these  ?  Frequently  the  remonstrance  is  added  that,  in 
any  case,  it  is  wrong  to  appeal  to  the  "  harmful  conse- 
quences "of  a  theory  in  disproof  of  its  truth,  when  the 
sole  question  should  be,  Is  it  true  ?  It  is  necessary, 
however,  very  carefully  to  discriminate.  It  is  freely 
granted  that  there  are  many  inquiries  in  criticism  which 

50 


"  Presuppositions  " 


faith  can  afford  to  look  on  with  equanimity.*  There  are 
books  in  the  Bible — for  example,  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
compilations  from  earlier  materials,  and  admittedly  of 
late  date — the  authorship  of  which  is  unknown.  Yet 
their  authority  is  not  destroyed,  and  it  is  a  legitimate 
question  how  far  this  process  of  compilation  may  extend. 
Or,  take  the  question  of 

THE    PENTATEUCH. 

I  myself  take  a  high  view  of  the  connection  of  Moses  with 
the  Pentateuch.  I  believe  this  to  be  the  view  borne  out 
by  internal  evidence,  by  the  later  testimony  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  by  unbroken  tradition  since.  Yet  there 
are  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  we  know  Moses  did 
not  write — e.g.,  the  account  of  his  own  death  (Deut. 
xxxiv.)  ;  and  if  it  should  prove  (as  I  think  probable) 
that  different  hands  co-operated  in  the  composition  of 
this  large  work,  that  it  embodied  older  or  later  records, 
and  that  it  underwent  repeated  revision  and  re-editing, 
our  faith  in  its  essentially  Mosaic  character  and  truthful- 
ness would  not  be  sensibly  affected. 

It  is  a  very  different  matter,  as  pointed  out  at  the 
commencement,  when  the  late  dates  assigned  to 
documents  are  employed  as  leverage  to  destroy  the  credi- 
bilityof  the  history,  and  to  upset,  at  almost  every  point, 
the  Bible's  witness  to  itself.  How,  a  reasonable  mind 
will  inevitably  ask,  can  anyone  regard  as  the  Word  of 
God  a  book  which  confessedly  is  largely  composed  of  fic- 

*It  is,  at  the  same  time,  only  superficially  plausible  to  say  that,  in 
almost  any  department,  criticism  "  does  not  matter."  It  is  the  case, 
e.g.,  that  the  more  nearly  we  come  to  contemporary  sources  in 
history,  the  better  is  our  foundation.  Who  will  deny  that  this  fact 
lends  importance  to  such  questions  as  to  whether  Moses  was  con- 
cerned in  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch;  or  whether  Luke  wrote 
the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  or  whether  Paul  was  the  author  of  the 
Epistles  that  bear  his  name  ? 

51 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

tions  and  incredibilities  ;  which  degrades  and  dishonousr 
God  by  its  representations ;  which  is  full  of  contra- 
dictions ;  in  which  its  most  solemn  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lords  "  are  denied ;  which  does  not  scruple,  on  occasion, 
to  employ  the  methods  of  fraud  ?  Criticism  of  this 
kind 

DOES   EMPHATICALLY   MATTER. 

It  is  the  armoury  in  which  popular  infidelity  finds  to-day 
its  most  effective  weapons  against  the  Bible. 

This  is  not  a  matter  which  appeals  only  to  academic 
interests.  The  argument  from  consequences  needs, 
indeed,  to  be  handled  with  caution.  But  in  no  sphere  of 
life  does  any  sane  man  close  his  eyes  to  the  nature  of  the 
consequences  of  the  theory  he  is  opposing  or  defending. 
Is  it  a  Fiscal  Controversy  ?  The  stake  is  held  to  be  the 
prosperity  or  ruin  of  the  Empire.  Is  it  a  question  of 
personal  conduct  ?  The  beneficial  or  harmful  conse- 
quences of  a  particular  line  of  action  are  never  forgotten 
to  be  urged.  Grave  or  hurtful  consequences  are  at  least 
always  regarded  as  a  reason  for  the  narrowest  scrutiny 
of  the  principles  or  theories  that  lead  up  to  them.  They 
are  often  more.  "  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them" 
is  given  as  a  test  bearing  directly  upon  truth.* 

It  is  carefully  to  be  observed,  in  entering  on  the  inquiry 
about  criticism,  that 

THE   BOOK   PROPOSED   TO   BE   SUBJECTED 

to  this  ordeal  does  not  come  to  the  trial  without  having 
something  to  say  for  itself  on  the  points  directly  at  issue. 

*Hence  the  ineptness  of  such  criticism  on  this  point  as  the  follow- 
ing :  — "  The  real  question  is  :  Are  the  generally  accepted  results  of 
Biblical  criticism  substantially  correct  ?  If  they  are,  we  must  accept 
them,  no  matter  what  consequences  they  involve.  '  Let's  have  the 
light  even  if  we  perish  in  it.'"  Is  it  probable  that  the  true  light  will 
issue  in  destruction  ? 

5* 


11  Presuppositions  M 


The  investigation  does  not  take  place  in  vacuo.  The 
slate  is  not  clean  at  the  commencement  of  the  critics' 
proceedings.  The  Bible  has  a  character,  an  identity,  a 
witness  of  its  own,  which  must  be  taken  account  of  in 
any  examination  of  its  claims.  It  comes  into  court  with 
very  distinct  claims.  It  professes  to  be  a  history  of 
revelation.  It  gives  itself  out  as  a  record  of  God's  deal- 
ings with  man  in  revelation  from  the  beginning.  It  un- 
folds the  course  of  that  revelation  through  its  successive 
dispensations.  It  has  its  own  account  to  give  of  the 
origin  of  its  laws  and  institutions.  Its  narrative  is  con- 
nected with  great  historic  personages — Abraham,  Moses, 
Samuel,  David,  the  prophets,  culminating  in  Jesus 
Christ,  the  goal  of  the  whole.  The  history,  accordingly 
has 

AN  ORGANIC,  PROGRESSIVE  CHARACTER, 

is  charged  with  deep  ideas,  moves  forward  under  the 
impulse  of  an  indwelling  divine  purpose,  which  cannot  be 
eliminated  from  its  parts  without  destroying  the  signi- 
ficance of  the  whole. 

More  even  must  be  said  of  it  than  this.  The  Old 
Testament  abounds  in  claims  to  be,  or  convey,  the  Word 
of  God  to  its  own  time  and  people.  Jesus  accepted  it  as 
such  (e.g.,  Matt.  iv.  4,  7,  10  ;  v.  17,  18 ;  xv.  3, 6 ;  Luke 
xxiv.  26,  27 ;  John  v.  39,  45-47).  He  appeals  to  its 
narratives,  even  the  earliest,  in  proof  of  the  great 
principles  of  His  religion  (Matt.  xix.  4-6;  xxii.  31,  32). 
The  New  Testament  declares  this  to  be  its  character, 
and,  in  the  essentials  of  its  message,  affirms  it  to  be  the 
Word  of  God  to  Christians  still  {e.g.,  Rom.  i.  1,  2  ;  iii. 
1,  2  ;  1  Cor.  x.  11;  2  Tim.  iii.  15,  17).  The  Old  Testa- 
ment gives,  besides,  good  reasons  for  these  claims  in  the 
spiritual  powers  with  which  its  revelation  is  shown  to  be 
charged.     The  onus  lies  on  the  critic,  if  he  will,  of  dis- 

53 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

proving  this  character  of  the  Bible  (many,  of  course,  do 
not  desire  to  disprove  it).  It  cannot  be  simply  ignored, 
or  treated  as  if  the  claim  was  not  there.  The  critic  can- 
not be  allowed,  in  oblivion  of  all  this,  to  start 

THEORY-BUILDING 

on  the  origin  and  course  of  Israel's  history  and  religion, 
as  if  nothing  already  was  given.  Yet,  as  we  are  soon  to 
see,  this  is  precisely  what  the  modern  criticism,  in  its 
most  eminent  representatives,  does. 

It  will,  in  truth,  become  apparent,  as  we  proceed,  that 
nearly  everything  in  this  critical  study  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment depends  on  the  principles  by  which  we  are  guided, 
and  the  spirit  in  which  the  study  is  conducted.  Criticism 
is  like  the  fiery-cloudy  pillar  which  led  the  Israelites 
through  the  Red  Sea  :  it  has  a  double  aspect — light  to 
the  hosts  in  front  ;  darkness  to  their  pursuers.  To  one 
man,  imbued  with  the  Psalmist's  love  of  God's  law 
(Ps.  cxix.  18),  criticism  discloses  endless  harmonies  and 
agreements.  To  another  it  discovers  nothing  but 
difficulties,  incredibilities,  contradictions,  moral  mon- 
strosities. It  follows  that  we  cannot  be  too  careful  about 
our  starting  points  and  methods. 

II. 

This  brings  me  to  a  closer  scrutiny  of  the  methods  of 

THE   NEWER  CRITICISM 

of  whose  procedure  I  complain.  Criticism,  I  know,  is 
for  the  present  so  settled  on  its  lees  in  its  confidence  in 
its  immovable  results  that  little  that  anyone  can  say  will 
make  any  impression  on  it.  It  points,  in  the  familiar 
phrase,  to  its  "  assured  results,"  and  there  is  held  to  be 
an  end  of  it.  There  are,  however,  several  questions 
which  press  for  answer  here.     A  first  is,  Are  the  results 

54 


11  Presuppositions " 


settled  ?  Next,  if  they  are,  How  are  they  settled  ?  And 
yet  another  is,  Should  they  be  settled  ?  And  the  middle 
question  of  these  three — the  question  of  the  How — is  as 
important  as  either  of  the  others.  It  is  the  one  I  propose 
to  look  at  to  begin  with. 

The  story  of  how  criticism  has  come  to  reach 

ITS   PRESENT   ADVANCED   POSITION 

is  too  long  to  be  here  even  entered  on.  Two  periods,  in 
general,  may  be  distinguished: — 

First,  there  was  the  period  of  the  "  literary  "  criticism, 
with  its  "  results"  in  the  analysis  of  the  documents  of 
the  Pentateuch  now  commonly  accepted  (J,  E,  D,  P, 
with  their  developments),  the  assigning  of  Deuteronomy 
to  the  age  of  Josiah,  the  attributing  of  the  second  part  fcp 
Isaiah  to  the  exile,  of  Daniel  to  the  age  of  the  Maccabees, 
&c. 

Next  came  the  period  of  the  so-called  "  historical- 
religious  "  criticism,  inaugurated  (with  some  precursors) 
by  Graf  in  1866,  and  carried  forward  by  Kuenen,  Well- 
hausen,  and  others,  till  it  has  become  the  reigning 
school.  In  its  hands  history,  laws,  religion,  all  go  into 
the  melting-pot,  with  consequences  that  will  afterwards 
become  apparent.  Its  distinctive  and  most  plausible 
feature  is  the  theory  of 

THE   THREE   CODES 

— viz.,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic, 
and  the  Priestly  Codes — assumed  to  correspond  with 
successive  periods  of  the  history.  The  Levitical  Code, 
assigned  by  the  Bible  to  Moses,  is  post-exilian.  The 
order  of  "  Levites  "  takes  its  origin  from  the  "  degraded 
priests"  of  Ezek.  xliv. 

If  now  the  question  is  asked,  By  what  method  are  these 
"results"    obtained?    the    answer    will  confidently    be 

55 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

given — by  careful  literary  and  historical  investigation. 
And  I  have  no  disposition  to  deny  that  honest  and  care- 
ful investigation  has  played  a  large  part  in  the  history  of 
criticism.  Critical  theories  are  often  hypotheses  to 
explain  real  phenomena,  and  it  is  only  fair  to  give  careful 
attention  to  any  facts  they  bring  to  light  and  seek  to 
account  for.  But  is  this  all  ?  If  it  were,  it  is  safe  to 
say  we  should  not  have  the  results  now  shown.  But  it 
is  not.     There  is 

A   DEEPER   FORCE   AT   WORK 

whose  action  has  profoundly  controlled  and  directed  the 
operations  of  Old  Testament  criticism  from  the  first. 
The  force  I  speak  of  is  the  rationalistic  conviction  that  a 
supernatural  explanation  of  facts  cannot  be  admitted. 
From  the  beginning  Old  Testament  criticism  has  been 
committed  to  this  idea,  and  it  is  under  its  influence,  very 
largely,  that  the  modern  theory  we  are  now  discussing 
has  been  built  up.  This  preconception,  connected  with 
what  is  called  "  the  modern  view  of  the  world,"  enters 
deeply  into  both  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament 
criticism  at  the  present  hour. 

I  take  here  a  striking  illustration  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  Old. 
Germany  and  other  countries  have  been  flooded  of  late 
with  books,  some  of  a  popular  order,  setting  forth  the 
lineaments  of  a  non-supernatural  Jesus,  and  of  a  Chris- 
tianity divorced  from  "  Pauline  "  ideas.  Against  this  so- 
called  "  religious-historical  "  view  of  Jesus  and  Chris- 
tianity, as  represented  by  two  writers,  Bousset  and 
Wrede,  the  Ritschlian  Professor,  Julius  Kaftan,  of 
Berlin,  utters  himself  in  a  trenchant  pamphlet,  Jesus  und 
Paulus,  which,  in  its  own  way,  is  a  sign  of  the  times. 
His  words  are  weighty.  This  new  theorising,  he 
doclares  emphatically,  "  has   its  roots  in  quite  other  soil 

56 


Presuppositions" 


than  that  of  method."  "  It  is,"  he  says,  "  put  briefly, 
the  so-called  '  modern  view  of  the  world  '  (modeme 
Weltanschauung)  which  stands  behind  it  "  (p.  4).  He 
shows  how  this  leads  to  a  quite  unhistorical  representa- 
tion of  both  Jesus  and  Paul,  and  concludes  a  searching 
investigation  with  the  judgment:  "I  conclude,  there- 
fore, that  this  'Jesus-religion'  is  an  affair  without  roots. 
As  it  has  points  of  support  neither  in  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  nor  in  primitive  Christianity,  so  it  will  never 
approve  itself,  not  to-day,  and  not  in  the  future,  as  a 
possible  form  of  Christianity  "  (p.  77). 

Exactly  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  modern  theorising 
on  the  Old  Testament.      It  has  its  roots  not  in  method 
but  in 

AN    ANTI-SUPERNATURALISTIC     PRESUPPOSITION. 

De  Wette,  in  his  Introduction,  laid  it  down  that  the  miracu- 
lous narratives  of  the  Old  Testament  "  have  their  founda- 
tion partly  in  the  deficiency  and  narrowness  of  human 
knowledge  at  that  time  .  .  .and  partly  in  the  distance 
of  time  between  the  event  itself  and  the  written  account 
of  it,"  and  held  that  they  were  to  be  treated  as  "  historical 
myths"  (II.  p.  25).  The  criticism  of  Kuenen  and  Well- 
hausen  is  ruled  by  this  idea.  Prof.  G.  B.  Foster,  of 
Chicago  University,  declares,  with  the  endorsement  of 
that  body,  in  his  recent  book  on  The  Finality  of  the 
Christian  Religion,  that  "  to  the  scientific  understanding 
of  the  world,  and  to  the  intellectual  aptitude  superin- 
duced   by    science,    a    miracle   cannot     be    admitted " 

I  have  been  criticised  for  saying,  in  my  book  on  Gods  Image  in 
Man,  that  the  Christian  view  of  the  world  is  not  the  "modern  "  view, 
and  that  we  ought  to  have  the  courage  to  declare  this.  Kaftan  utters 
himself  in  much  stronger  language  than  I  have  cared  to  use.  "I 
am  no  lover,"  he  says,  "of  the  modern  view  of  the  world;  rather,  I 
find  it  astonishing  that  so  many  thinking  men  should  be  led  astray 
by  this  bugbear"  (p.  72).     See  page  151. 

57 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

(p.  130),  and  devotes  a  large  section  of  his  work  to  the 
proof  of  this  thesis. 

I  know,  of  course,  very  well  that  many  who  have 
adopted  and  work  with  these  theories  retain  their  faith 
in  the  supernatural.  Their  reason  for  doing  so  is  the 
very  just  one  that  they  perceive  quite  clearly  that,  with 
any  amount  of  critical  violence,  you  cannot  get  the 
supernatural  out  of  the  Bible.  It  is  there,  and  will  re- 
assert itself.  Their  problem,  accordingly,  is  to  work 
these  two  things  together,  and  the  result  is  a  compromise 
which  will  not  stand,  since  the  things  attempted  to  be 
combined  are  opposite  in  principle.  Fruit  grown  upon  a 
tree  of  such  pronouncedly  rationalistic  root  does  not 
become  good  simply  by  being  served  up  in  a  Christian 
basket.* 

III. 

The  truth  of  what  is  now  said  becomes  more  evident, 
when,  from  its  underlying  principle,  we  look  to 

THE   WORKING    OUT 

of  this  modern  critical  theory.  The  Bible  is  a  book  full 
of  the  supernatural  from  beginning  to  end.  It  is  the 
history  of  the  development  of  a  supernatural  purpose, 
issuing  in  the  Incarnation,  and  in  a  supernatural  economy 
of  redemption.  It  is  a  story,  from  the  Call  of  Abraham 
downwards,  of  the  entrance  of  God  into  history  in 
supernatural  word  and  deed.     It  is  clear  that  the  critical 

*The  reply  sometimes  made  to  an  argument  of  this  kind,  viz.,  that 
the  believer  also  has  his  "presuppositions,"  is,  in  this  connection, 
without  force.  The  difference  is,  that  the  believer's  presuppositions  are 
those  which  the  Bible  itself  yields  ;  the  critics'  are  not,  but  the 
negation  of  the  Bible's  postulates.  The  believer,  accordingly  inter- 
prets the  Bible  along  the  Bible's  own  lines ;  the  opposite  view  can 
only  be  maintained  by  continual  drafts  on  the  historic  imagination, 
and  by  bold  and  arbitrary  treatment  of  the  text  and  history. 

58 


Presuppositions " 


view,  having  as  its  postulate  the  denial  of  all  this,  has  no 
alternative  but  to  begin  by  sweeping  the  whole  of  it 
away.  This,  accordingly,  is  what  it  actually  does.  The 
process  has  two  stages,  in  each  of  which  the  character- 
istic vice  of  the  method  is  laid  bare.  The  method,  first, 
compels  rejection,  almost  in  toto,  of  the  history  we  have  ; 
next,  it  invokes  imagination  to  fill  up  the  blank  by  devis- 
ing a  new  history,  fashioned  on  its  own  principle  of 

RELIGIOUS    EVOLUTION. 

As  to  the  completeness  of  the  sweep  made  of  the 
existing  history,  there  can  be  no  question.  Mr.  Addis 
has  just  published  a  volume  on  Hebrew  Religion*  in 
which  the  patriarchal  age  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned. 
To  use  a  phrase  of  Duhm's,  applied  to  the  Mosaic  period 
it  is  simply  "  wiped  out."t  The  same  is  true  of  the  age 
of  Moses,  even  where  the  lawgiver's  personality  and 
religious  leadership  of  Israel  are  admitted.  The  history 
as  we  have  it  disappears.  But  some  go  further.  In  an 
important  work  lately  published  by  Prof.  Ed.  Meyer,  of 
Berlin,  on  Israel  and  its  Neighbours,  t  the  thesis  is  laid 
down  and  defended  that  Moses  is  no  historical  personality 
(p.  569).  This  will  comfort  Dr.  Cheyne,  who  cannot 
believe  that  Moses  was  even,  like  Sargon,  "  a  historical 
personage  with  mythic  accretions."  The  book  of  Joshua 
is  a  "  romance."  I  gave  in  my  volume  on  the  Old 
Testament  a  typical  example  of  this  "  historical  "  method 
from    Budde,    which    I    may    here  reproduce.      He    is 

*[The  criticisms  on  Mr.  Addis  here  and  in  later  papers  are  allowed 
to  remain  ;  but  I  desire  now  to  say  that  I  have  no  doubt  of  this 
writer's  full  acceptance  of  the  great  doctrines  of  our  common  Christian 
faith.     I  cannot  change  my  view  on  the  consistency.] 

tDuhm  boasts  in  his  work  on  the  Prophets  (p.  19)  that  by  the 
transference  of  a  single  source  (the'  Priestly  Law)  into  the  post-exilian 
time,  "  atone  stroke  the  '  Mosaic'  period  is  wiped  out." 

\Die  Israeliten  und  ihre  Nachbarstamme. 

59 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

explaining  how  the  Kenite  god  of  Moses  became  trans- 
formed into  the  Yahweh  of  a  later  period  by  the  absorp- 
tion of  "  other  gods  "  into  Himself.  "Yahweh  had  not 
expelled  or  annihilated  them  [the  Canaanitish  Gods],  but 
had  made  them  subject :  He  had  divested  them  of  their 
personality  by  absorbing  them  into  His  own  person.  To 
be  sure,  neither  the  law,  nor  the  historical  narratives,  nor  the 
prophets  say  a  word  of  all  this,  yet  it  can  be  proved,"  &c* 

Another  branch  of  the  same  procedure  is  the  removal 
by  critical  expurgation  of  any  passages  or  references  in  the 
history  or  prophets  which  do  not  suit  the  critical  scheme. 
The  high  priest,  for  instance,  Wellhausen  tells  us,  is  a 
creation  of  the  exile.  He  is  "  unknown  even  to  Ezekiel."t 
Yet  the  high  priest  is  mentioned  at  least  four  times  in 
the  preceding  history  (2  Kings  xii.  10  ;  xxii.  4-8 ;  xxiii., 
4),  and  the  texts  are  sustained  by  the  parallel  passages  in 
Chronicles  and  by  the  Septuagint.  What  is  to  be  done 
with  them  ?  They  are  simply  struck  out  as  inter- 
polations. 

The  passage  above  quoted  from  Budde  serves  equally 
as  an  illustration  of  the  counter  process  of 

FILLING  UP  FROM  IMAGINATION 

the  blanks  created  by  this  annihilation  of  the  existing 
history.  Examples  would  be  endless.  The  whole  critical 
theory  of  the  evolution  of  Israel's  religion  from  a  primitive 
animism  to  the  creation  of  the  Priestly  Code  in  the  exile 

^Religion  of  Israel,  p.  41.  Italics  are  mine.  The  above  is  a  sug- 
gestive commentary  on  such  panegyrics  on  the  newer  criticism  as 
those  in  Prof.  Kent's  Origin  and  Permanent  Value  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, "  Not  a  grain  of  truth  which  the  Bible  contains  has  been 
destroyed  or  permanently  obscured.  Instead,  the  debris  of  time 
honoured  traditions  and  dogmas  have  been  cleared  away,  and  the 
true  Scriptures  at  last  stand  forth  again  in  their  pristine  splendour," 
&c.  !  (p.  16). 

\Hist.  of  Israel,  pp.  142-3. 

60 


"  Presuppositions  " 


is,  in  my  judgment,  a  case  of  it,  and  it  was  seen  a  in 
previous  paper  that  Hugo  Winckler,  the  Orientalist,  is  of 
the  same  opinion.  Only  an  instance  or  two  need  be 
given. 

It  was  mentioned  before  that  the  "  Levites  "  in  the 
Priestly  Code  are  supposed  to  have  taken  their  origin  in 
the  "  degradation  "  of  the  unfaithful  priests  of  Ezek,  xliv. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  such  a  degradation  was  ever 
carried  out,  much  less  that  the  "  Levites,"  already  found 
at  the  return  from  exile  (Ezra  ii.  40  ;  iii.  8,  &c),  were  the 
creation  of  any  such  ban ;  yet  we  are  treated  with 
imaginary  pictures  of  the  "  vehement  struggles " 
(adumbrated  in  the  story  of  Korah)  of  these  degraded 
priests  in  the  exile  to  regain  their  lost  privileges !  * 
Nothing  could  be  more  baseless. 

Again,  the  Decalogue  is  denied  to  Moses,  but  the  fiction 
of  a  "second  decalogue,"  which  is  supposed  to  be  more 
primitive,  is  extracted  from  Exodus  xxxiv.  14-26.  Yet 
Mr.  Addis,  who  serves  up  this  "earliest  decalogue"  with- 
out demur  in  his  Hebrew  Religion  (pp.  117-19),  had  him- 
self told  us  in  his  larger  work  on  the  Hexateuch  (I.  p. 
157),  in  this  agreeing  with  very  many  critics,  that  the 
disentangling  of  the  alleged  "  ten  words  "  is  "  mere  guess- 
work !  "  In  the  same  writer  a  proof  that  "  the  door- 
posts [in  Israel]  were  under  the  protection  of  penates,  or 
spirits  of  the  household,"  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the 
master  took  his  bondsmen  "  to  the  door-post,  and  pierced 
his  ear  with  an  awl,  by  that  act  bringing  him  to  Elohim  " 
(P-  37  J  Cf.  Exodus  xxi.  6).  What  can  be  clearer  than 
that  "Elohim"  here  means  simply  "judges"  (E.V. 
"  shall  bring  him  unto  the  judges  "),  as  unquestionably  it 
does  in  1  Sam.  ii.  25  ?  More  examples  will  be  found 
when  we  come  to  deal  with  worship. 

*E.g.,  Kautzsch,  in  his  Lit.  of  O.  7*.,  p.  117. 

61 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

IV. 
To  prove   the   Wellhausen    theory,    however,    to    be 
arbitrary  and  fallacious  would  avail  little,   if  it  were  not 
possible  to  put  some 

POSITIVE   CONSTRUCTION 

in  its  place,  and  to  show  that  the  Biblical  representation, 
to  which  the  Wellhausen  conception  is  opposed,  is  capable 
of  vindication  on  its  own  account.  It  has  been  pointed 
out  that  the  most  fundamental  and  plausible  part  of  this 
hypothesis — that  which  has  gained  for  it,  undoubtedly, 
most  acceptance — is  its  skilful  theory  of  the  "  three 
Codes."  It  may  serve  a  useful  purpose  at  this  stage, 
therefore,  briefly  to  bring  the  Biblical  and  the  critical 
views  on  these  Codes  into  contrast,  and  to  test  their 
respective  merits. 

The  comparison  is  crucial  in  other  ways.     It  is  some- 
times said  that  there  is  no  claim  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  to 

MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP. 

But  is  this  the  case  ?  Does  not  the  Decalogue  claim  to 
be  Mosaic  ?  Does  not  every  Code  of  Law  in  the  Old 
Testament  claim  to  be  from  Moses  ?  Moses  is  said  to 
have  written  down  the  laws  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Ex.  xxiv.  3-7).  He  is  expressly  said  to  have  written  the 
law  in  Deuteronomy  (Deut.  xxxi.  9).  He  gave  the 
Levitical  Laws.  The  arguments  against  the  Mosaic 
authorship  formerly  drawn  from  the  absence  of  the  art  of 
writing  and  the  state  of  culture  of  the  time  are  vanishing 
with  better  knowledge,  and  objection  now  chiefly  turns 
on  the  supposed  incompatibility  of  the  Codes  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  history. 

CRITICAL  THEORY  OF  THE   CODES. 

Criticism  undertakes  to  show  that  the  three  Codes  in 

62 


11  Presuppositions  " 


question — the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  and  the  Levitical  Code — are  non-Mosaic,  partly  on 
the  ground  of  their  internal  incompatibility,  but  chiefly 
because  they  can  be  proved  to  belong  to  successive  periods 
of  history  by  their  correspondence  with  the  conditions  of 
these  periods.  As  Prof.  Peake,  in  a  lecture  before  quoted,* 
succinctly  puts  the  matter  :  "  By  proving  that  these  Codes 
arose  in  different  ages,  and  were  elicited  by  different 
social  and  religious  conditions,  it  [criticism]  has  removed 
the  great  stumbling-block  presented  by  the  spectacle  of 
radically  inconsistent  Codes  given  by  the  same  legis- 
lator with  an  interval  of  a  few  months  at  most  between 
them  "  (the  interval  between  Deuteronomy  and  the  other 
Codes,  it  may  be  remarked,  was  nearly  forty  years).  The 
law  in  Exodus  xx.-xxiii.,  it  is  held,  with  its  provision  for 
a  multiplicity  of  altars  (Ch.  xx.  24),  ruled  till  the  age  of 
Josiah ;  then  came  the  movement  for  the  centralisation 
of  worship  inaugurated  by  Deuteronomy,  taken  to  be  "  a 
prophetic  programme  "  ;  the  Levitical  Code  is  post-exilian, 
as  is  thought  to  be  proved  by  the  absence  of  all  reference 
to  its  characteristic  institutions  earlier.  So  it  used  to  be 
shown  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  could  not  be  earlier  than 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  because  it  reflected 
the  conditions  of  the  conflict  with  Gnosticism  ! 

Historical  and  legal  details  will  be  considered  in 
another  connection.  I  wish  now  to  try  to  show  that, 
from  the  Bible's  own  point  of  view,  the  whole  theory 
rests  on 

A   FUNDAMENTAL  OVERSIGHT. 

A  constant  assumption  of  the  school  I  am  criticising  is 
that  the  Levitical  Code  is  put  forth  as  a  fixed,  immutable 
system  of  laws,  given  once  for  all  in  the  wilderness,  and 
intended  to  regulate  the  life  and  practice  of  the  Israelites, 

""■Manchester  Inaugural  Lectures,  p.  32. 

63 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

without  change  or  modification,  in  all  future  time.  The 
late  Prof.  W.  R.  Smith  makes  this,  which  he  calls  "  The 
Traditional  Theory  of  the  Old  Testament  History,"  the 
basis  of  his  whole  exposition  of  the  theory  of  the  Codes. 
"  As  soon,"  he  says,  "  as  we  lay  down  the  position  that  the 
system  of  the  ceremonial  law,  embracing  as  it  does  the 
whole  life  of  every  Jew,  was  completed  and  prescribed  as 
an  authoritative  code  for  Israel  before  the  conquest  of 
Canaan,  we  have  an  absolute  rule  for  measuring  the  whole 
future  history  of  the  nation,  and  the  whole  significance  of 
subsequent  revelation  under  the  whole  Testament."* 
Now  look  at  the  facts. 

Two  things  are  clear  as  day  in  the  history  of  the  Mosaic 
times :  the  people  looked  forward  to  Canaan,  yet  the 
ceremonial  legislation,  in  its  immediate  form,  was  all  but 
wholly  adapted  to  the  conditions  of  the  wilderness. 

Let  anyone  read  carefully  the  laws  and  narratives 
attributed  to  the  Priestly  Code  in  Exod.  xxv.  ff.,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers,  and  he  will  see  that,  throughout,  the 
arrangements  described  are 

ADAPTED   TO   THE   WILDERNESS, 

and  that  many  of  them  have  no  meaning  except  there. 
The  arrangements,  e.g.,  for  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and 
his  sons  ;  the  census-lists  of  the  tribes  ;  the  arrangements 
for  the  disposition  of  the  tribes  in  their  several  camps 
around  the  tabernacle  ;  the  elaborate  instructions  for  the 
march  of  the  host ;  the  choice  of  the  Levites  and  details 
of  their  duties  in  the  charge  and  conveyance  of  the 
tabernacle   in    its  journeyings ;  the    directions    for    the 

*Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  pp.  298,  ff.  (1st  Edition). 
Even  on  this  showing,  does  the  conclusion  follow  ?  How  would  it 
fare  with  the  New  Testament  Church  if  tested  by  the  "  absolute  rule  " 
of  Christ's  teaching  ?  How  many  epochs  and  passages  in  its  history 
would  have  to  be  ruled  out  as  "unhistorical?'' 

64 


"Presuppositions 


making  of  the  tabernacle  itself — for  the  tabernacle  in 
its  nature  was  a  structure  which  was  bound  in  time  to 
wear  out  and  need  replacement.  Even  the  laws  and 
ritual  of  the  sacrifices  and  feasts,  where  there  is  obviously 
more  that  is  intended  to  be  permanent,  are,  in  the  first 
instance,  cast  into  the  wilderness  forms.  We  have,  e.g., 
the  direction  for  the  carrying  forth  of  the  bullock  of  the 
sin-offering,  "  without  the  camp,  unto  a  clean  place," 
and  burning  of  it  there  (Lev.  iv.  12),  which  so  stumbled 
Bishop  Colenso.  Evidently  the  whole  cast  of  such 
legislation  would  become  unsuitable  on  entering  the  land. 
Only  the  principles,  in  many  cases,  would  remain.  An 
observance  in  the  letter  would  be  a  manifest  impossi- 
bility. 

A  vast  mass  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  therefore,  is, 
on  the  face  of  it,  of  a  temporary  character.  It  corresponds 
with  the  description  of  it  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
as  an  economy  that  "  decayeth  "  and  "  is  ready  to  vanish 
away "  (Heb.  viii.  13).  This  is  a  fact  of  weighty 
importance  in  its  bearing  on  the  difficulties  which  the 
critics  raise  about  the  Codes.  Two  things,  apart  from 
the  very  direct  presumption  it  affords  of  an  authorship  in 
the  Mosaic  age,*  follow  from  it : — 

♦Bleek,  one  of  the  older  critical  writers,  made  good  use  of  this  in  his 
Introduction,  as  proving  "that  an  important  part  of  the  laws  and 
ordinances  of  the  Pentateuch  is  of  such  a  nature  that,  judging  from 
their  purport  and  form,  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  belong  to  any 
other  age  than  the  Mosaic  ;  also  that  the  historical  part  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  generally  confirmed  by  them,  since  they  relate  so 
clearly  to  the  circumstances  contained  in  the  history."  {Introd.  I.  p. 
225,  E.  T.).  He  says  that  when  we  meet  with  laws,  as  those  men- 
tioned above,  "which  refer  in  their  whole  tenor  to  a  state  of  things 
utterly  unknown  in  the  period  subsequent  to  Moses,  and  to  circum- 
stances existing  in  the  Mosaic  age,  and  to  that  only,  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  likely  that  these  laws,  not  only  in  their  essential  pur- 
port proceeded  from  Moses,  but  also  that  they  were  written  down  by 
Moses,  or  at  least  in  the  Mosaic  age"  (p.  212). 

65  F 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

i.  It  expjains  why  the  traces  of  this  Levitical  Code 
are 

RELATIVELY  SCANT 

in  the  periods  that  succeeded  Moses.  They  are  not 
nearly  so  scant,  it  will  be  discovered,  by  any  means,  as 
the  critics  try  to  make  out.  Great  allowance  must  also, 
in  fairness,  be  made,  in  Hebrew  as  in  Christian  history, 
for  times  of  religious  disorganisation  (e.g.,  the  Judges), 
corruption,  and  declension.  But  it  is  not  always 
sufficiently  considered  how  large  a  part  of  the  Levitical 
legislation  was  necessarily  left  behind  in  the  simple 
transition  from  life  in  the  wilderness  to  settled  life  in 
Canaan.  Priests  and  Levites,  e.g.,  are  no  longer  found 
grouped  in  their  tents  around  the  tabernacle  ;  but  a  quite 
different  provision  is  made  for  them  in  the  institution 
of  the  Levitical  cities  (Num.  xxxv. ;  Josh,  xxi.).*  The 
ritual  law  was  carried  forward  as  far  as  practicable,  yet 
under  new  forms  and  conditions,  which  made  reference  to 
the  laws  in  their  wilderness  forms  unlikely.!  When  the 
temporary  part  of  the  legislation  is  stripped  off,  the  laws 
that  remain  are  of  a  kind  which  it  would  be  very  difficult 
to  prove  were  not  always  of  validity  in  Israel. 

Besides  this,  it  seems  to  me  quite  a  mistake  to  sup- 
pose that  the  godly  in  Israel  ever  were,  or  were  intended 
to  be, 

*It  is  possible  that,  like  many  other  laws,  this  law  of  the  Levitical 
cities  was  never  very  strictly  carried  out,  though  there  are  instances 
implying  its  existence.  (Cf.  i  Sam.  vi.  15  ;  1  Kings  ii.  26  ;  Jer.  i.  1). 
But  is  it  credible  that  Ezra  should  have  given  to  the  people  for  the 
first  time  a  law  declaring  that  forty-eight  cities  had  been  set  apart 
from  time  immemorial  for  this  purpose  when  everybody  present  must 
have  known  that  no  such  cities  ever  existed?  Yet  such  is  the  critical 
theory. 

\CJ.  my  Problem  of  the  O.T.,  pp.  300,  325. 

66 


1 '  Presuppositions 

SLAVES  TO   THE    LETTER 

of  the  law  to  the  extent  that  many  suppose  (i  Sam.  xv. 
21).*  The  moral  law  was  ever  above  the  ritual  (Cf. 
Matt.  xii.  3-7).  As  necessity  arose,  laws  were  freely 
altered  or  modified,  of  course  under  proper  authority. 
David,  on  the  testimony  of  the  "  Levitical  "  Chronicler, 
reorganised  the  whole  worship  of  the  tabernacle  (1  Chron. 
xxiii.  ff.).  The  tax  imposed  by  Nehemiah  was  the  third  of 
a  shekel,  instead  of  the  half  shekel  of  the  law  (Neh.  x.  32). 
When  all  the  circumstances  are  considered,  we  may  begin 
to  feel  with  Dillmann  that  the  allusions,  even  to  ritual,  in 
the  history  are  as  numerous  as  we  had  any  right  to 
expect. 

2.     It  leads  us  to  anticipate  that,  later,  new  laws 

MODIFYING    THE    OLD 

would  be  given  in  prospect  of  entering  the  land.  If  the 
Levitical  law,  as  just  said,  at  once  looked  forward  to 
entering  Canaan  {e.g.,  Lev.  xxv.  2),  yet,  in  its  immediate 
shape,  was  wholly  adapted  to  conditions  in  the  wilder- 
ness, it  is  only  what  we  might  expect  that,  as  the  time 
for  the  change  approached,  new  or  supplementary 
ordinances  would  be  given  {e.g.,  the  directions  for  the 
Levitical  cities,  Num.  xxxv. ;  laws  of  inheritance,  Num. 
xxxvi.),  and  that  in  any  rehearsal  or  re-promulgation 
certain  changes,  readaptations,  and  modifications  of  laws 
would  be  made.  This  last  is  precisely  what  we  find  in 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  looks  forward  not  only 
to  life  in  Canaan,  but  to  a  future  settled  place  for  God's 
house,  in  room  of  the  shifting  tabernacle,  and  to  a 
stricter  centralisation  of  worship  than  was  then  possible 
(Ch.  xii.).  It  will  be  seen  afterwards  that  there  is  in 
this  no  "  radical  inconsistency  "  with  the  older  legislation, 
*Ibid,  pp.  179,  504. 

67 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

which  also  has  the  unity  of  God's  worship  as  its  ideal.  So 
far  from  Deuteronomy  "  contradicting  "  the  law  about 
the  altar  of  earth  or  stone  in  Ex.  xx.  24-25,  it  directly 
falls  back  on  that  law  in  ordaining  an  altar  to  be  set  up 
on  Mount  Ebal  (Deut.  xxvii.  4-7). 

V. 

Here,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  we  have,  in  great  part, 

THE    REAL   SECRET 

of  the  peculiarities  of  the  three  Codes,  on  an  illusory 
interpretation  of  which  the  new  theory  of  Israel's  law 
and  religion  is  made  to  hinge.  When  the  right  per- 
spective is  attained,  the  "radical  inconsistencies"  of  the 
critic's  imaginings  largely  fall  away  of  their  own  accord. 
The  oldest  Code  in  Ex.  xx-xxiii.  cannot  stand  in  essential 
disagreement  with  the  Levitical  ritual  law,  for,  except  in 
the  law  of  the  altar  (Ex.  xx.  24-26),  which  is  quite  general, 
and  probably  embodies  old  usage,  and  one  or  two  other 
points  (the  feasts,  Ex.  xxiii.  14-19),  it  deals,  as  civil  law,* 
with  a  different  class  of  subjects  altogether.  As  little  can 
"  radical "  inconsistency  be  alleged  between  this  Code 
and  Deuteronomy,  seeing  that,  apart  again  from  the  altar- 
law,  the  Deuteronomic  Code  is,  by  all  but  universal 
admission,  based  on  this  older  legislation.  The  supposed 
discrepancy  on  the  central  sanctuary  will  be  discussed 
after. 

The  only  crucial  question,  then,  is  as  to 

THE   RELATION  OF  THE  LEVITICAL  LAW  TO  DEUTERONOMY, 

and  on  this  point  the  Bible  and  the  Wellhausen  criticism 
do  stand  "radically"   opposed.      The   Bible   makes  the 

*In  form  and  character,  as  shown  by  the  recently  discovered  code 
of  Hammurabi  (the  Amraphel  of  Gen.  xiv.),  this  Code  has  on  it  the 
impress  of  great  antiquity. 

68 


'  Presuppositions 


Levitical  law  the  earlier,  representing  it  as  the  product 
of  the  wilderness,  with  which  its  form  agrees.  Criticism, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  tears  it  away  from  its 
Mosaic  basis,  and  carries  it  down  to  post-exilian  times ; 
puts  it  after  the  prophets.  Instead  of  the  order  "  law 
and  prophets,"  we  have  now  the  order  "  prophets  and 
law." 

But,  apart  from  other  objections,  is  this  likely  ?  It  is 
the  favourite  theory  at  present,  but  is  it  natural  or 
reasonable  ?  As  we  formerly  saw,  Hugo  Winckler,  who 
knows  as  much  about  Oriental  codes  as  most,  decidedly 
rejects  it  on  historical  grounds.  Law  and  prophets,  he 
tells,  are  present  from  the  beginning  {op.  cit.,  p.  47). 
But  is  it  reasonable  in  itself? 

IS   PROGRESS   BACKWARD  ? 

Which  is  the  more  natural  order,  from  outward  to 
inward,  or  from  inward  to  outward  ?  From  rudiments  to 
more  spiritual  teaching  ?  Or  from  spiritual  teaching 
back  to  "  beggarly  elements  ? "  The  law  has  a  suit- 
ability and  value  in  its  own  place  as  a  stepping-stone  to 
something  higher;  a  prefiguration  of  more  spiritual 
blessings  to  come.  But  how  shall  we  regard  it  as  any 
part  of"  the  Word  of  God,"  if  it  represents  an  unspiritual 
lapse  from  prophetic  teaching  to  an  infinitely  lower  level  ? 
is,  in  truth,  a  concoction  of  exilian  priests,  who  know 
no  better  way  of  commending  their  fictions  than  by 
passing  them  off  in  the  name  of  Moses  !  Having  begun 
in  the  Spirit,  was  it  God's  will  that  His  chosen  people 
should  be  made  perfect  in  the  flesh  ?      Later  Judaism, 

*The  opposition  of  "priestly ''  and  "prophetic"  tendencies  may 
easily  be  exaggerated.  Isaiah  received  his  call  in  vision  in  the  temple; 
Jeremiah  was  of  priestly  descent  ;  priests  and  prophets  acted  together 
at  the  finding  of  the  law  in  Josiah's  reign ;  Deuteronomy  is  marked 
by  both  tendencies ;  Ezekiel  was  a  priest  ;  Joel,  Haggai,  Zachariah, 
Malachi  do  honour  to  the  law,  &c. 

69 


TheT  Bible  Under  Trial 

no  doubt,  represents  a  descent  into  an  exaggerated 
legalism  ;  but  was  this  the  proper  order  or  outcome  of 
God's  dispensations  ? 

How,    finally,  does    it    stand   with  the    Codes  them- 
selves in  the 

RELATION    OF  DEPENDENCE  ? 

It  is  not  difficult  to  show  that,  in  manifold  ways,  as 
scholars  of  the  highest  standing  maintain,  the  Levitical 
law,  or  portions  of  it,  are  implied  in  Deuteronomy.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  peculiarities  of  Deuteronomy  are 
not  reflected  in  the  Levitical  law.  There  is  allusion  to 
the  Priestly  law  in  Deuteronomy  (Cf.  Deut.  xiv.  4-20, 
which  Dr.  Driver  admits  is  "  in  great  measure  verbally 
identical"  with  Lev.  xi,  2-23).  But  the  Priestly  law 
shows  no  acquaintance  with  Deuteronomy.  What  con- 
clusion is  reasonable,  but  that  the  Priestly  law  is  the 
earlier  of  the  two  ? 


70 


IV 

"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 


"Settled   Results" 
in  Criticism 

NO  argument  is  more  frequently  employed  to  silence 
objection  to  modern  critical  theories  than  the 
alleged  agreement  of  competent  scholars  as  to 
the  main  results  of  their  criticism.  The  labours  of 
over  a  century  have  issued  in  certain  "  settled  results," 
which  it  is  held  to  be  folly  and  presumption  for  non- 
experts any  longer  to  question.  Harnack's  words,  quoted 
in  a  previous  paper,  show  that  the  same  temper  is  carried 
into  New  Testament  criticism,  and  embody  his  vigorous 
protest  against  it, 

I  have  venture  to  enter 

A   DEMURRER 

against  this  summary  method  of  foreclosing  a  controversy 
of  such  magnitude.  I  have  pointed  out  that,  even  if  the 
results  could  be  regarded  as  settled,  there  is  a  prior  ques- 
tion to  be  answered  :  How  are  they  settled  ?  I  have  tried 
to  show  that  from  the  first  a  pronouncedly  rationalistic 
strain  has  entered  into  this  criticism,  and  that  the  methods 
it  employs  are  not  such  as  to  command  our  confidence. 
If  further  proof  were  needed  of  the  predominantly  rational- 
istic character  of  the  movement,  it  could  be  furnished 
abundantly  from  the  historical  sketches  in  Prof.  Foster's 
recent  work  on  The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion, 
in  which  the  fact   is  dwelt   on   with   approval   (pp.   94, 

73 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

114,  &c).  Without  dwelling  further  on  this,  I  come 
now  to  deal  with  the  other  two  questions  I  proposed, 
which  raise  a  direct  issue  : 

ARE   THE  RESULTS  SETTLED  ? 

And,  if  they  are,  Should  they  be  settled  ? 

I. 

It  is  desirable,  first,  to  have  one  or  two  specimens  of 
the  kind  of  assurance  expressed.  I  take  these  from 
recent  writers  already  cited. 

Mr.  Addis,  in  his  book  on  Hebrew  Religion,  under  the 
heading  of  "Results  of  Criticism  Assumed,"  writes: 
"  On  many  questions  of  capital  moment — such,  e.g.,  as 
the  dates  at  which  the  documents  composing  the 
Pentateuch  were  written  down,  the  date  and  authorship 
of  most  of  the  prophetic  books — there  is  practical 
unanimity  among  men  whose  knowledge  entitles  them  to 
judge.  This  agreement  has  been  slowly  attained ;  it  has 
been  severely  tested  by  discussion,  nor  is  there  the 
slightest  ground  for  thinking  that  it  will  ever  be  seriously 
disturbed"  (pp.  11,  12).  He  admits  that  there  are  "  other 
matters,"  as,  e.g.,  the  extent  to  which  the  genuine  works 
of  the  prophets  have  been  interpolated  by  the  scribes, 
which  are  still  "  shrouded  in  uncertainty " — a  serious 
qualification  of  the  alleged  agreement. 

Let  us  listen  next  to  Prof.  Peake,  in  his  Manchester 
lecture  on  "  The  Present  Movement  of  Biblical  Science." 
"We  need  not  hesitate,"  he  says,  "to  claim  that  many 
assured  results  have  been  reached,  which  the  future  is  not 
likely  to  reverse."  After  giving  an  enumeration  which 
includes  "  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  into  four  main 
documents,  the  identification  of  the  law  on  which  Josiah's 
reformation  was  based  with  some  form  of  the  Deuteronomic 
Code,  the  compilation  of  that  Code  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh 

74 


"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

at  the  earliest,  the  fixing  of  the  Priestly  Code  to  a  date 
later  than  Ezskiel,  the  highly  composite  character  of 
some  parts  of  the  prophetic  literature,  especially  the  Book 
of  Isaiah,  the  post-exilian  origin  of  most  of  the  Psalms,  and 
large  parts  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs,  the  composition  of 
Job  not  earlier  than  the  exile  and  probably  later,  the 
Maccabean  date  of  Daniel,  and  the  slightly  earlier  date  of 
Ecclesiastes,"  he  adds  :  "  On  all  these  points  it  would  be 
possible  to  name  dissentient  voices,  but,  speaking  gener- 
ally, these  results  would  probably  secure  the  adhesion  of 
most  Old  Testament  critics  "  *  (p.  32). 

This,  no  doubt,  looks  imposing.  The  simplest  way  of 
testing  it,  I  think,  will  be  to  give 

A   BRIEF,    UNVARNISHED   SKETCH 

of  the  actual  course  of  development  and  present  position 
of  criticism  on  the  subjects  named.  I  have  noted  already 
the  judgment  of  Winckler  and  his  school  on  the  Well- 
hausen  theory  of  religion,  on  which  so  much  of  the 
criticism  depends.  But  I  take  here  the  literary  criticism 
on  its  own  merits.  Probably,  at  the  end  of  the  survey,  the 
reader  may  be  less  reminded  of  "  assured  results  "  than 

*  So,  writing  as  early  as  1887,  Prof.  Briggs  said  of  the  analysis  of 
the  Hexateuch  :  "  There  has  been  a  steady  advance,  until  the  present 
position  of  agreement  has  been  reached  in  which  Jew  and  Christian, 
Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Rationalistic  and  Evangelical 
scholars,  Reformed  and  Lutheran,  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal, 
Unitarian,  Methodist,  and  Baptist,  all  concur.  .  .  .  There  are 
no  Hebrew  Professors  on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  so  far  as  I  know, 
who  would  deny  the  literary  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  into  the  four 
great  documents.  .  .  .  The  Professors  of  Hebrew  in  the  Uni- 
versities of  Oxford,  Cambridge,  and  Edinburgh,  and  tutors  in  a  large 
number  of  theological  colleges  hold  to  the  same  opinion.  ...  I 
doubt  whether  there  is  any  question  of  scholarship  whatever  in  which 
there  is  greater  agreement  among  scholars  than  on  this  question  of  the 
literary  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch." — Presbyt.  Reviev,  1887,  p.  340;  Cf. 
his  Hexateuch,  1893,  pp.  94,  144. 

75 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

of  the  famous  picture  in  Dante's  poem  of  an  eager  crowd 
circling  round  and  round  in  pursuit  of  a  whirling  flag, 
which  perpetually  eludes  its  grasp.*  The  critical  chase 
of  certainty  in  "results"  seems  to  me  well-nigh  as 
hopeless. 

II. 

Criticism  began,  as  is  well  known,  with  the  observa- 
tion of 

THE    ALTERNATION   OF   THE    DIVINE    NAMES, 

"Elohim"  (God)  and  "Jehovah"  (E.V.  "Lord"),  in 
certain  sections  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  (up  to  Exod.  vi).t 
Soon  literary  peculiarities  were  discovered  distinguishing 
these  sections — named  respectively  "  Elohistic  "  and 
"  Jehovistic."  By  and  by  it  was  noticed  that  this  distinc- 
tion did  not  cover  the  whole  field.  Certain  parts  of  the 
Elohistic  narrative  lacked  the  literary  marks  of  the  other 
parts  (especially  after  Ch.  xx.),  and  closely  resembled  the 
Jehovistic  portions  in  everything  but  the  use  of  the  divine 
name.  Criticism  now  took  the  bold  step  of  separating  these 
newly-distinguished  parts  and  erecting  them  into  a  separate 
document,  known  thenceforth  as  the  Second  Elohist,  or 
E.  Hitherto  the  Elohistic  document  had  been  regarded 
as  a  complete,  continuous  history,  and  the  Jehovistic  parts 
had  been  viewed  as  fragmentary  and  supplementary.  Now 
these,  also,  were  regarded  as  forming  a  continuous  docu- 
ment, thenceforth  designated  J.  As  far  back  as  the  days 
of  De  Wette  Deuteronomy  had  already  been  separated 

*Ed  io,  che  riguardai,  vidi  un'  insegna 
Che,  girando,  correva  tanto  ratta, 
Che  d'ogni  posa  mi  pareva  indegna  ; 
E  dietro  le  venia  si  lunga  tratta 
Di  gente,  &c. — Inf.,  Canto  III. 
tFor  a  fuller  account  of  these  theories,  with  names  and  dates,  see 
my  Problem  of  the  O.T.,  ch.  vii. 

76 


11  Settled  Results  "  in  Criticism 

from  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  and,  on  grounds  of  style 
and  law,  relegated  to  the  age  of  Josiah.  This  is  known 
as  D. 

Criticism   had  now  fairly  entered   on    its    speculative 
stage,  and 

THE   "  FOUR   DOCUMENTS," 

which  rank  among  the  "assured  results,"  are  well  in 
sight.  There  is  the  original  Elohist,  latterly  known  as  P, 
a  priestly  work,  to  which  the  framework  of  the  narrative 
in  Genesis,  and  the  Levitical  laws,  belong ;  there  are  the 
popular  (so-called  "  prophetic  ")  narratives  of  J  and  E ; 
and  there  is  the  Josianic  prophetic  law-book,  D.  As 
to  age,  up  to  this  time  the  Elohistic  work  (P)  was 
regarded  as  beyond  question  the  oldest  of  all — either 
Mosaic,  or,  in  its  legal  parts,  largely  Mosaic  ;  at  latest, 
of  the  days  of  Samuel  or  Saul ;  J  and  E  were  dated 
about  the  days  of  the  undivided  kingdom,  or  shortly  after. 
Then  came 

THE    VOLTE   FACE 

of  the  Graf  school,  by  which  the  "  settled  results  "  of  the 
previous  period  were  precisely  reversed,  and  the  whole 
Levitical  Code  was  lifted  down  bodily  from  the  beginning 
to  the  end  of  Israel's  history,  the  narrative  part  with 
which  it  was  connected  soon  following.  The  Elohistic 
"  document,"  from  being  the  oldest  of  the  four,  now 
became  the  youngest.  It  was  as  if  a  man,  who  before 
stood  on  his  feet,  was  suddenly  turned  over,  and  made 
to  stand  on  his  head.  The  result  was  naturally  a  con- 
siderable internal  derangement.  Vision  was  affected, 
and  things  generally  took  on  an  upside-down  look.  The 
history  was  reconstructed  in  a  new  perspective.  The 
Mosaic  period,  as  Duhm  said,  was  "  wiped  out." 
Mosaic  laws,  the  tabernacle,  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  the 
Levites,    Passover    laws,    &c,    became    "  fiction."      As 

77 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Colenso  put  it :  "  For  all  those  who  are  convinced  of 
the  substantial  truth  of  the  above  results,  the  whole 
ritualistic  system,  as  a  system  of  divine  institution, 
comes  at  once  to  the  ground.  .  .  .  The  whole 
support  of  this  system  is  struck  away  when  it  is  once 
ascertained  that  the  Levitical  legislation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  entirely  the  product  of  a  very  late  age,  a  mere 
figment  of  the  post-captivity  priesthood."  * 

J  and  E  were  now  commonly  put  in  the  time  of  the 
divided  monarchy,  say  from  850  to  750  B.C.  (according  to 
which  was  put  first),  i.e.,  before  Amos.  Further,  as  the 
two  were  so  closely  united,  they  were  assumed  to  have 
been  combined  into  one  work  (JE),  some  time  before  their 
final  union  with  P  after  the  exile.  One  important  con- 
sequence of  the  new  dating  was  that,  as  the  source  P  was 
now  put  later  than  JE,  it  became  impossible  consistently 
to  argue  that  P  "  knew  nothing  "  of  this  or  that  matter 
contained  in  the  older  narratives.  Wellhausen  owns  that 
P's  narrative  throughout 

PRESUPPOSES  AND  RUNS  PARALLEL  TO 

thatofJE.t  It  could  not,  therefore,  wilfully  contradict 
JE. 

It  might  be  supposed  that,  having  reached  the  bottom 
in  this  inversion  of  previous  theories,  criticism  would  now 
indeed  "  settle,"  and  be  at  peace.  We  are  only,  however, 
as  we  soon  discover,  at  the  beginning  of  new  develop- 
ments. The  "  four  documents,"  which,  we  are  told,  are 
among  the  "  assured  results,"  begin  themselves  to  split 
up,  and 

DETAIL    INTO   A    SERIES 

under  each  denomination,  which  effectually  disposes  of 

their  unity.     The  original  J  disintegrates  into  a  J1,  J2,  J  ; 

E  similarly  into  an  E1,  E1',  E3;  P,  in  Kuenen's  hands,  gets 

*  Pent.,  vi.  Pref.  p.  xi.  j  History  0/  Israel,  pp.  295-6. 

78 


"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

the  length  of  a  P4,  and  there  is  needed  for  the  processes  of 
union  a  like  series  of  "  Redactors,"  R1,  R2,  R3,  &c.  As 
history  knows  absolutely  nothing  of  these  hypothetical 
entities,  they  can  be  multiplied  to  any  extent  at  pleasure. 
The  paragraphs,  verses,  or  fragments  of  verses  to  be 
assigned  to  each  are  now  picked  out  and  exhibited,  as 
they  are,  e.g.,  in  the  Oxford  Hexateicch. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  as  this  process  goes  on,  that  we  are  on 
the  verge  of  fresh  transformations.  The  members  of  the 
series  so  flow  together  that  it  speedily  becomes  impossible 
to  maintain  their  identity ;  accordingly,  as  the  next 
development  along  this  line,  we  have  the  dropping  of 
individualities  altogether,  and  the  courageous  conversion  of 
the  J,  E,  P,  D,  and  R  series  (our  "  four  documents  ")  into 

"schools," 

which  extend  downwards,  no  one  can  quite  tell  how  far. 
Thus,  as  in  the  ancient  Heraclitean  philosophy,  "  All 
flows."  How  any  reasonable  mind  is  to  figure  to  itself 
these  various  "  schools  "  (of  whose  existence,  remember, 
we  have  no  evidence)  with  their  several  characteristics  in 
the  use  of  the  divine  names  and  otherwise,  flowing  on 
side  by  side,  without  mingling,  within  the  narrow 
limits  of  Judaea  (the  Northern  Kingdom  is  out  of  the 
question  after  722  B.C.),  and  afterwards  in  the  exile, 
for  some  centuries,  is  not  explained,  and  I  do  not  stop  to 
inquire. 

Is  the  end  even  yet  reached  in  this  singular  evolution 
of  "  assured  results  "  ?  It  does  not  appear  so.  At  an  early 
stage  the  J  and  E  analysis  was  carried  forward  from  the 
Pentateuch  into  the  Book  of  Joshua,  and  for  the  criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch  was  substituted  that  of 

THE    "  HEXATEUCH." 

But  might  not  this  process  be  carried  still  further  :  into 
the    Book   of  Judges,    into    Samuel,    into    Kings — when 

79 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

"  schools  "  come  on  the  scene,  even  through  the  whole 
Old  Testament  ?  So  many  scholars  think,  and  this  seems 
to  be  the  direction  in  which  Old  Testament  criticism  is 
now  moving.  I  cite  in  illustration  a  significant  passage 
from  the  able  Montauban  theologian  before  quoted,  M. 
Westphal.  He  is  speaking  in  the  name  of  Old  Testament 
science  on  the  application  of 

"  THE   HISTORICAL   METHOD." 

"  All  the  documents  of  the  Old  Testament,"  he  says, 
11  will  be  submitted  to  a  rigorous  exegesis  and  criticism 
relative  to  their  contents,  their  date,  and  their  author. 
.  .  .  This  work  will  lead  to  our  establishing,  for  example, 
that  the  historical  books  of  the  old  Testament — from 
Genesis  to  Nehemiah — are  not,  as  it  seems  after  the 
division  introduced  by  the  rabbis,  a  series  of  16  or  17 
distinct  works,  written  successively  by  different  authors, 
but  that  they  constitute,  in  reality,  two  great  sources  of 
history,  ceaselessly  amplified,  enriched,  and  extended 
which  in  their  first  pages  blend  their  narrations,  and 
proceed,  both  of  them,  from  the  recital  of  the  creation  of 
the  world  to  the  last  tribulations  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel 
and  of  Judah."*  (The  two  sources  are  the  "prophetic" 
and  the  "  priestly.") 

III. 

Still,  within  even  these  very  wide  limits  now  reached 
may  it  not  be  affirmed  that  there  is,  after  all,  a  large  basis 
of  agreement  among  the  critics  ?  To  test  this,  I  propose 
to  look  at  some  of 

THE  CRUCIAL   POINTS 

more  closely.     I  may,  however,  here,  reproduce  from  my 
own  volume  two  sentences  from  leading  critics,  which  are 
as  eloquent  on  the  point  as  anything  I  can  hope  to  advance. 
*  Jehovah,  les  lit  apes  de  la  Revelation,  p.  18  ff, 

80 


"  Settled  Results '  in  Criticism 

Professor  Kautzsch,  of  Halle,  in  the  front  rank  of  Old 
Testament  scholars,  makes  this  remarkable  statement : 
"  In  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of  Joshua  it  is  only  with 
regard  to  P  that  something  approaching  to  unanimity  has 
been  attained."*  Kuenen,  another  foremost  authority, 
says  of  JE  :  "As  the  analysis  has  been  carried  gradually 
further,  it  has  become  increasingly  evident  that  the  critical 
question  is  far  more  difficult  and  involved  than  was  at 
first  supposed,  and  the  solutions  which  seemed  to  have 
been  secured  have  been,  in  whole  or  part,  brought  into 
question  again. "t 

Take  now  some  examples  on  the  leading  issues.  The 
simile  of  the  "  whirling  flag  "  may  often  recur  to  us  as  we 
proceed. 

On  nearly  every  point  in  regard  to  the 

ALLEGED   J   AND   E   DOCUMENTS 

— on  date,  place  of  origin,  relation  to  each  other  (earlier 
or  later),  extent — it  might  easily  be  shown  that  leading 
critics  are  completely  at  sixes  and  sevens.  Confident 
statements  are  often  made,  e.g.,  that  J  is  "Judaean"  in 
origin,  is  about  a  century  older  than  E,  &c.  But  these 
positions  are  directly  challenged  by  others  equally  eminent. 
The  question  of  priority,  Mr.  Addis  confesses,  "  is  still  one 
of  the  most  vexed  questions  in  the  criticism  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch."j     Yet  much  depends  upon  it. 

So  marked,  again,  is  the  resemblance  between  the  two 
supposed  documents  that  it  is  admitted  to  be  hardly 
possible  to  distinguish  them  after  the  criterion  of  the 
divine  names  fails  in  Genesis.  What  one  critic  attributes 
to  J  or  E,  another  frequently  gives  to  the  rival  source. 
An  outstanding  example  is  Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.,  which  Well- 
hausen,   Westphal,  &c,    assign  to    J,   while    commonly 

*  Lit.  of  0.  T.,  p.  226.  t  Hexaleuch,  p.  139.  \  Docs,  of  Hex.  I. 
p.  lxxxi. 

8l  G 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

it  is  given  to  E.*  On  the  question  of  extent,  the 
divergence  of  opinion  is  acute.  Some  can  trace  the 
presence  of  J  in  Judges,  Samuel,  i  Kings,  "  with  perfect 
certainty  "  ;  others  deny  it.  Wellhausen  and  Steuernagel 
maintain  that  J  is  wholly  absent  even  in  Joshua.  So, 
while  many  are  lowering  the  age  of  the  documents,  a 
critic  like  Konig  carries  up  the  date  of  E,  which,  with 
many,  he  puts  before  J,  as  far  as  the  age  of  the  Judges ! 
Or  take  the  still  more  important  example  of 

DEUTERONOMY. 

How  does  the  case  stand  with  regard  to  unanimity  here  ? 
Many  put  the  origin  of  the  book  in  the  reign  of  Josiah, 
often  in  combination  with  a  hypothesis  of  fraud.  Others 
avoid  this  by  carrying  it  back  to  the  reign  of  Manasseh — 
a  view  to  which,  Kuenen  says,  there  is  "  fatal  "  objection. 
Others  go  higher  still,  and  place  it  hypothetically  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah.  A  minority,  pointing  to  the  absence 
of  all  traces  of  the  divided  kingdom,  carry  it  up  to  a  date 
much  nearer  Moses,  and  hold  the  kernel  to  be  Mosaic. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  powerful  current  has  set  in 
towards  disintegration.  Dr.  Driver  ably  defends  the 
unity  of  the  book ;  Kuenen  upheld  the  unity  of  Chs. 
v.-xxvi. ;  Wellhausen,  with  many  others,  divided  the 
hortatory  and  legislative  parts,  and  took  the  original  book 
to  consist  only  of  Chs.  xii.-xxvi.  Now,  however,  the  book 
is  handed  over  to  the  mercies  of  a  Deuteronomic 
"  school,"  and  its  disintegration  proceeds  apace.  "  The 
Code  and  its  envelopments,"  says  the  Oxford  Hexatench, 
"  homiletic  and  narrative,  hortatory  or  retrospective,  must 
thus  be  regarded  as  the  product  of  a  long  course  of  literary 
activity  to  which  the  various  members  of  a  great  religious 

*  The  importance  of  this  is  that  many  alleged  linguistic  marks  of 
E,  e.g.,  Amah  for  "  maid-servant,"  are  supported  from  this  section. 

82 


" Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

school  contributed"  (II.,  p.  302).     On  this  view  the  law- 
book of  Josiah  is  reduced  to  Chs.  xii.-xix.  (p.  95). 

Have  we  even  yet  attained  to  "  assured  results  "  ?  Not 
in  the  least.    Within  the  last  few  years 

STILL  ANOTHER  THEORY  OF  DEUTERONOMY 

has  appeared — that  of  Steuernagel — which  cuts  up  all 
previous  theories  by  the  roots,  and  starts  off  on  quite  new 
lines.  This  scholar,  whose  views  have  already  obtained 
influential  support,  thinks  the  critics  all  wrong  in  dividing 
the  books  into  hortatory  and  legislative  sections,  and  pro- 
poses a  new  division  cross-ways,  into  sections  marked  by 
the  use  of  the  singular  pronouns  ("  thou,"  &c),  and 
sections  marked  by  the  use  of  the  plural  ("  ye,"  &c).  I 
do  not  believe  that  the  new  theory  has  any  more  solid 
foundation  than  the  others,  but  it  assuredly  casts  an 
interesting  light  on  the  claim  to  "  settled  "  conclusions. 
A  glance  must  now  be  taken  at  the  so-called 

PRIESTLY   CODE. 

This  is  the  key  of  the  position  of  the  Wellhausen 
theory,  and  here,  if  anywhere,  the  critics  may  be  expected 
to  hold  together.  But  while  there  is  naturally  more 
semblance  of  agreement  on  the  surface,  arising  from  the 
marked  peculiarities  that  distinguish  the  P  source,  there 
is  found  again  keen  difference  on  the  matters  which  are 
most  essential.  One  question  is  as  to  the  extent  of  the 
source.  It  is  found,  e.g.,  in  Joshua  ?  Most  critics  say 
yes;  Wellhausen  says  no.  lie  regards  the  "  main  stock" 
of  the  Priestly  narrative  as  ceasing  with  the  death  of 
Moses,  and  denies  the  identity  of  the  P  hand  in  Joshua 
with  that  of  the  earlier  books. 

A  more  fundamental  question  is  as  to  the  unity  of  the 
source.  Graf,  the  founder  of  the  school,  till  his  death 
declined  to  admit  that  the  P  sections  ever  existed  as  a 

83 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

separate,  independent  work,  and  the  disintegration  of  the 
writing  which  has  been  going  on  ever  since  (P\  P2,  P, 
&c.)  is  a  practical  endorsement  of  his  opinion.  The  so- 
called  Priestly  narrative,  in  fact,  often  a  mere  thread,  is, 
especially  after  the  hypothetical  E  has  been  cut  out  of  it, 
a  broken,  unequal,  fragmentary  thing,  which  anyone  look- 
ing at  it  might  see  could  never  have  subsisted  alone.  Its 
interrelations  with  J  and  E  are  so  close  that  it  needs 
them,  and  they  need  it,  throughout.* 

The  state  of  opinion  about  the  Priestly  Code  as  respects 
agreement  is  best  seen  by  looking  at  that  interesting 
section  of  it  commonly  spoken  of  as 

THE   LAW   OF   HOLINESS. 

This  is  a  portion  of  the  law  (Lev.  xvi.-xxvi.,  mainly) 
which  critics,  with  much  plausibility,  regard  as  having  at 
one  time  formed  a  code  or  summary  of  Levitical  law  stand- 
ing by  itself.  It  is  acknowledged  also  that  the  closest 
relation  subsists  between  it  and  the  Book  of  Ezekiel. 
What  is  that  relation  ?  Originally,  it  was  confidently 
held  that  Ezekiel  must  be  the  author  of  the  Code  ;  most 
now,  putting  it  later,  explain  the  resemblances  by  the 
violent  hypothesis  of  an  "  imitation "  of  Ezekiel ;  Dr. 
Driver  and  many  others  see  clearly  that  it  must  have 
existed  before  Ezekiel  and  been  used  by  him ;  other  lead- 
ing critics  discern  plain  traces  of  its  use  in  Deuteronomy ; 
older  scholars,  like  Dillmann,  and  some  more  recent, 
ascribe  to  it  a  very  high  antiquity.  Such  views,  even  that 
of  its  antecedence  to  Deuteronomy  (this  the  more,  the 
further  we  carry  the  date  of  that  book  back),  are  fatal 
to  the  theory  of  a  post-exilian  origin  of  the  law. 

*  E.g.,  P  alone  records  the  making  of  the  Ark  (Gen.  vi.) ;  J 
records  Noah's  sacrifice  (Gen.  viii.  20),  but  P  alone  tells  of  his  going 
out  of  the  Ark  (vers.  15-19)  ;  the  promise  of  Ishmael  is  given  in  J  (Gen. 
xvi.  11),  but  P  records  his  birth  (vers.  16-17  ;  P  alone  records  the  ages 
and  deaths  of  the  patriarchs,  &c. 

84 


" Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

Here  also  disintegration  is  active  (Hl,  H3,  H3,  &c.),  but 
the  most  curious  feature  is  the  tendency  to  enlarge  the 
scope  of  this  remarkable  section  of  the  law,  once  freedom 
is  gained  by  making  it  post-exilian.  First  one  part,  then 
another,  legal  and  historical,  is  given  to  it,  till  it  assumes 
quite  imposing  proportions.  A  single  quotation  from  the 
Oxford  Hexateuch  will  illustrate  this  singular 

PROCESS   OF    REPRISTINATION. 

"  Other  scholars,  again,  like  Wurster,  Cornill, 
Wildeboer,  further  propose  to  include  within  it  a  con- 
siderable group  of  Levitical  laws  more  or  less  cognate  in 
subject  and  style.  .  .  .  Are  all  these  passages  to  be 
regarded  as  relics  of  Ph  ?  In  that  case  it  must  have  con- 
tained historical  as  well  as  legislative  matter  on  an  exten- 
sive scale.  It  must  have  related  the  commission  to  Moses, 
the  death  of  the  firstborn,  the  establishment  of  the 
Dwelling,  and  the  dedication  of  the  Levites  to  Yahweh's 
service.  Even  if  the  latter  passages  be  denied  to  Pu,  the 
implications  of  Ex.  vi.  6-8  suggest  that  the  document  to 
which  it  belonged  comprised  an  account  of  the  exodus, 
the  great  religious  institutions,  and  the  settlement  in  the 
land  promised  to  the  fathers  !  "  (I.  p.  145). 

Does  criticism  not  seem  here  to  be  in  the  way  of 
working  out  its  own  cure  ?  Transpose  this  source,  as  I 
think  we  are  compelled  to  do,  from  a  post-exilian  to  a 
pre-Deuteronomic  age,  and  have  we  not  very  much  our 
old  Pentateuch  back  again  ? 

IV. 

Readers  may  now  judge  whether,  instead  of  "  assured 
results,"  we  ought  not  more  properly  to  speak  of  "  critical 
uncertainties."  Before,  however,  touching  on  other  points, 
it  may  be  desirable  again  to  attempt  something  in  the 
way  of  positive  construction.     This  can  best  be  done  by 

85 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

taking  up  the  question  still  held  over.  Assuming  certain 
results  to  be"  "settled"  in  the  critical  schools,  I  would 
ask — 

SHOULD  THEY   BE   SETTLED  ? 

This  brings  us  back  to  the  critical  theories  of  J  and  E. 
The  "dates"  of  these  documents,  according  to  Mr. 
Addis,  are  among  the  things  of  "  capital  moment  "  on 
which  there  is  "  agreement."  We  have  seen  how  far  this 
is  from  being  the  case,  but  let  that  pass.  He  puts  the 
dates  at  "  between  850  and  750."  Even  were  these 
dates  granted,  it  should  be  observed  that  we  should  still 
be  a  long  way  from  the  conclusion  that  the  contents  of  the 
narratives  are  merely  "  legendary,"  as  is  too  commonly 
assumed.  The  essential  thing  is  not  the  date  at  which 
a  narrative  assumed  its  present  literary  form.  A  narrative 
may  be  late,  and  yet  be  based  on  much  older  and  perfectly 
reliable  materials.  The  older  narratives  of  the  Bible 
(patriarchal  and  Mosaic)  have  a  character  of  naturalness 
and  truth,  a  force  and  liveliness  of  representation,  a 
suitability  to  the  conditions  of  the  age,  a  penetration  by 
the  Divine  purpose,  a  coherence  with  the  whole  plan  of 
God's  revelation,  which  must  for  ever  remain  a  bulwark 
against  their  resolution  into  late  popular  legends,  casually 
brought  together,  and  wrought  into  their  present  shape 
by  some  unknown  writers  well  down  in  the  monarchy  ! 

But  I  now  go  further,  and  ask :  What  are  the  grounds 
for  this  relatively 

LATE   DATING   OF  J   AND   E  ? 

The  reader  will  be  a  clever  man  if  he  can  discover  them. 
It  is  sometimes  argued  that,  since  J  and  E  are  many 
centuries  later  than  Moses,  Deuteronomy  must  be  later 
still,  because  it  pre-supposes  the  history  and  legislation  of 
the  former  works.     But  the  argument,  surely,  may  be  as 

86 


"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

effectively  reversed  :  for,  if  Deuteronomy  be  an  older — 
still  more,  as  I  believe,  a  substantially  Mosaic — book,  the 
immediate  result  is  to  throw  back  the  J  and  E  history  and 
legislation,  on  which  it  is  based,  into  actually  Mosaic 
times.  Why  should  these  be  put  so  much  later  ?  There 
is  nothing  I  know  of  that  necessitates  or  warrants  so  late 
a  dating  as  the  critics  suggest,  but  much  that  speaks 
against  it.  Allowing  the  fullest  weight  to  the  casual 
indications  on  which  the  critics  lay  stress  to  show  a  post- 
Mosaic  origin  of  Genesis,  none  of  them  points  to  a  date 
beyond  the  early  days  of  the  Kingdom,  and  all  may  easily  be 
due  to  later  annotation.*  There  is  no  trace  of  allusion  in 
the  history  to  the  divided  kingdom.  Gunkel,  a  sufficiently 
advanced  critic,  will  not  allow  any  allusion  even  to  the 
reigns  of  Saul,  or  David,  or  Solomon. t 

Wherein  then  lies  the  reason  for  this  late  dating  of  the 
critics,  which  constantly  tends,  with  the  development  of 
their  theories,  to  become  later  ?  For  reason  of  some 
kind  there  surely  must  be.  If  the  matter  is  probed  to  its 
bottom,  apart  from  the  influence  on  the  judgment  of  a 
revolutionary  theory  of  religion,  I  believe  the  explana- 
tion will  be  found  to  lie  in  certain 

OBSCURE    MIRRORINGS 

of  later  events  in  the  history  of  Israel  which  they  think 
they  discern  in  the  simple  patriarchal  stories.  E.g., 
Jacob's  vow  at  Bethel  (Genxxviii.)  is  intended  to  sanction 
the  custom  of  paying  tithes  at  the  (calf-)  shrine  at  Bethel ; 
the  Syrians  wars  are  mirrored  in  the  relations  of  Jacob 
and  Laban  (Gen.  xxxi.)  ;  the  story  of  the  sin  of  Judah 

*  It  is  singular  how  jealous  the  critics  are  of  allowing  the  supposi- 
tion of  editorial  revision  to  anybody  but  themselves.  They  are  the 
last  persons  who  should  object. 

+  On  the  above  points,  see  my  Problem  of  the  O.T.,  pp.  111-112, 
371-4,  &c. 

87 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

(Gen.  xxxviii.)  is  intended  as  an  Ephraimite  mockery  of 
the  Southern  Kingdom,  &c*  The  dates  must  therefore 
be  as  late  as  these  events.  The  reader  may  decide 
whether  this  is  science,  or  a  play  of  unbridled  imagination. 
Gunkel  rejects  these  mirrorings  in  toto. 

I  advance  now  a  step  further  in  the  testing  of  these 
"  settled  results,"  and  ask, 

WHY   SHOULD  J   AND   E   BE   DISTINGUISHED 

as  two  documents  at  all  ?  This  touches  a  crucial  point. 
I  have  ventured  to  challenge  the  assertion  that  the 
priestly  history  and  legislation  ever  existed  as  a  separate 
document  t  ;  I  now  do  the  same  about  J  and  E.  It  is  not 
difficult,  indeed,  to  understand  how  E  came  originally  to 
be  separated  from  the  Jehovistic  and  older  Elohistic 
sections,  viz.,  through  its  use  of  the  name  "  God,"  and  its 
contrast  in  style  with  the  remaining  Elohistic  parts.  But 
no  reason  was  ever  shown  for  setting  it  up  as  an  inde- 
pendent document,  nor  do  its  character  or  contents 
favour  such  an  idea  of  it.  The  truth  is,  these  so-called  E 
sections  stand  inseparably  connected  with  the  J  narrative, 
are  allowed  to  be  all  but  indistinguishable  from  it  in  style, 
run  parallel  to  it  in  content,  and,  generally,  would  never 
have  been  suspected  of  being  part  of  another  narrative, 
but  for  their  peculiar  use  of  the  divine  name.  The  fact 
of  the  distinction  in  the  names  of  God  remains,  but  it  is 
neither  uniform   nor  absolute!,  and   when  not  due,   as 

*  As  the  stories  are  supposed  to  be  the  reflections  of  contemporary 
events,  there  is  no  time  for  the  rise  of  legends,  and  they  must  be 
regarded  as  the  work  of  deliberate  invention. 

t  P  is  most  simply  regarded  as  (in  the  critics'  own  words)  "  the 
framework"  in  which,  in  Genesis  at  least,  the  JE  narratives  are  set. 
It  is  inseparable  from  them. 

J  "  Elohim  "  sometimes  occurs  in  Jehovistic  sections  (e.g.,  Gen.  iii. 
I,  3,  5  ;  xvi.  13  ;  xxxii.  28-29),  and  "  Jehovah  "  occasionally  in  Elohistic 
sections  {e.g.%  Genesis  xx.  18  ;  xxii.  11-14  ;  xxviii.  17-21). 


"  Settled  Results  "  in  Criticism 

sometimes  happens,  to  discriminative  use,  may  be  ex- 
plained in  other  ways,  possibly,  as  Klostermann  thinks, 
by  editorial  revision,  as  in  the  Elohistic  psalms.*  It 
cannot,  in  any  case  outweigh  the  other  strong  marks  of 
unity  in  the  narrative. t 

But  is  not  this  an  imperfect  statement  ?  Are  there  not 
numerous  marks  of  language,  style,  tone,  mode  of  repre- 
sentation, by  which  the  critics  profess,  irrespective  of  the 
divine  names,  to  make  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
assumed  J  and  E  writings  ?  There  are,  and  the  value  of 
them  is  seen  in  the  fact  that,  where  the  clue  of  the  divine 
name  fails,  discrimination  is  admitted  to  be  hardly  possible, 
and  the  greatest  diversity  obtains  in  the  results  secured. 
An  example  or  two  will  illustrate  the 

ILLUSORY   CHARACTER 

of  these  supposed  criteria  better  than  any  general  state- 
ment. I  take  them  from  a  recent  popular  book,  Prof.  J. 
E.  McFadyen's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament. 

Mr.  McFadyen  writes  in  an  easy,  pleasing  style,  and 
the  reader,  if  not  careful,  is  apt  to  be  carried  away  by  the 
flow  of  his  lucid  sentences.  But  let  him  test  the  asser- 
tions. "  The  basis  of  it  [the  attempt  at  distinction]  must, 
of  course,  be  a  study  of  the  duplicate  versions  of  the  same 
incidents"  (p.  13).  The  "of  course"  here  takes  it  for 
granted  as  a  thing  about  which  there  can  be  no  dispute 
that  the  stories  in  question  {e.g.,  Abraham's  denials  of  his 
wife,  Hagar  in  the  wilderness)  are  "  duplicate  versions  of 
the  same  incidents."     "That  is,"  he  proceeds,  "such  a 

*  Cf.  Ps.  liii.  with  Ps.  xiv.  ;  Ps.  Ixx.  with  Ps.  xl.  13-17,  where  both 
versions  are  given.  On  Klostermann's  views,  see  my  Proble?ns  oj 
0,T.,  pp.  227-8,  &c. 

t  Kuenen  has  himself  uttered  a  warning  "against  laying  an 
exaggerated  stress  on  this  one  phenomenon,"  which,  he  says,  has 
twice  led  criticism  astray  {Hex.  p.  61). 

89 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

narrative  as  Gen.  xx.,  which  uses  the  word  God  (Elohim), 
is  compared  with  its  parallel  in  xii.  10-20,  which  uses  the 
word  Jehovah  [once  in  xii.  17,  but  once  also  in  a  similar 
connection  in  xx.  18] ,  and  in  this  way  the  distinctive 
features  and  interests  of  each  document  will  readily  be 
found."  Then  comes  the  proof.  "  The  parallel  suggested 
is  easy  and  instructive,  and  it  reveals  the  relative  ethical 
and  theological  superiority  of  E  to  J  [others  reverse  the 
relation] .  J  tells  the  story  of  Abraham's  falsehood  with 
a  quaint  naivete  (vii.).  E  is  offended  by  it,  and  excuses 
it  (xx.).  The  theological  refinement  of  E  is  suggested 
not  only  here,  xx.  3,  6,  but  elsewhere,"  &c. 
Will  the  reader  now  take  the  trouble  to 

LOOK  AT   THESE   CHAPTERS 

for  himself?  He  will  discover,  perhaps,  to  his  surprise, 
that  J's  "quaint  naivete"  does  not  prevent  him  from 
representing  Pharaoh  as  denouncing  Abraham's  sin  in  the 
severest  terms,  after  Jehovah  had  plagued  the  king  with 
great  plagues  on  account  of  it  (Cf.  Ch.  xx.  17,  18),  and  as 
summarily  banishing  Abraham  "and  his  wife,  and  all  that 
he  had,"  out  of  Egypt  for  his  offence  (Ch.  xii.  17-20)  ; 
while  E,  who  has  the  "  relative  ethical  and  theological 
superiority,"  makes  Abimelech  load  Abraham  with 
presents,  offer  him  the  best  of  the  land,  and  content  him- 
self with  a  mild  rebuke  to  Sarah  (Ch.  xx,  14-16)  !  Would 
it  not  be  as  easy  to  argue  that  it  was  J  who  had  the 
keener  moral  sense  ?  The  supposed  "  excuse  "  is  Abra- 
ham's explanation  that  Sarah  was  his  half-sister  (ver.  12) — 
a  plea  the  truth  of  which  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt.  Ch. 
xx.,  indeed,  represents  it  as  a  settled  policy  on  Abraham's 
part  that  "  at  every  place  "  whither  they  came,  Sarah  was 
to  pass  as  his  sister  (ver.  13). 

"  Similarly,"  says   Mr.  McFadyen,  "  the   expulsion  of 
Hagar,  which  in  J  is  due  to  Sarah's  jealousy  (xvi.),  in  E, 

90 


"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

is  attributed  to  a  command  of  God  (xxi.  8-21)."  But  the 
first  instance  is  no  "  expulsion,"  but  a  voluntary  "flight," 
and  the  two  narratives  are  quite  different.  In  the  first 
(Ch.  xvi.)  Ishmael  is  not  yet  born,  and  the  angel,  in 
promising  his  birth,  directs  Hagar  to  return  to  her 
mistress  (ver.  9).  In  the  second  (Ch.  xxi.)  Ishmael  is 
grown  up,  and  Abraham,  deeply  grieved,  is  directed  to 
send  Hagar  away  (ver.  12).  Where  is  the  difficulty  ?  I 
have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  two  stories  are  distinct, 
and  that  both  were  found  in  the  original  tradition. 

V. 

This  must  suffice  for  the  Pentateuchal  "  documents  "  ; 
a  few  words  may  now  be  said  on  one  or  two  other  matters. 
In  view  of  the  very  radical  disagreements  of  eminent 
critics  as  to  most  parts  of 

THE  PROPHETIC  LITERATURE, 

to  which  Mr.  Peake,  in  his  afore-mentioned  lecture,  bears 
frank  witness  (pp.  36-38),  the  less  said  as  to  "  unanimity  " 
about  the  dates  and  authorship  of  the  prophetic  books  the 
better.  There  is  much  more  reason  for  raising  the  ques- 
tion of  the  "  should "  in  regard  to  these  results.  The 
whole  treatment  is  a  kind  of  whirligig  ;  caution  is  thrown 
to  the  winds  ;  subjective  canons  are  freely  employed  in 
accepting  or  rejecting ;  one  never  gets  to  feel  that  his  feet 
are  firmly  planted  on  anything.  In  the  unbounded  liberty 
of  theorising,  no  mortal  can  predict  what  cat  will  jump 
out  of  the  bag  next.  For  two  Isaiahs  there  are  now  no 
one  knows  how  many  (Duhm,  Cheyne).  Jeremiah  is 
resolved  into  fragments,  of  which  "  only  portions  come 
from  the  prophet  and  his  secretary."  "  The  subject," 
says  Mr.  Addis,  "  is  too  complicated  and  disputable  to  be 
treated  here  in  detail."*  Parts  even  of  Ezekiel  are 
*  Hebrew  Religion,  p-  xv. 

91 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

brought  down  to  the  first  century  B.C.  (Schmidt),  and 
the  prophecies  against  foreign  nations  are  disputed  (H.  P. 
Smith).  The  minor  prophets  are  subjected  to  drastic 
mutilation.  Against  these  extreme  conclusions  other 
critics  wisely  protest.  But  this  whole  region  of  criticism 
is  at  present  a  seething  sea  of  controversy,  and  is  bound 
to  remain  so  till  more  sober  guiding  principles  are 
adopted. 

The  interest  of  the  Christian  Church  in  these  discussions 
has  always  centred  very  naturally  in 

THE    BOOK   OF    ISAIAH, 

and  the  problems  of  that  book,  despite  all  that  has  been 
written  on  ist  and  2nd  Isaiahs,  are  still  far  from  being 
satisfactorily  solved.  I  may  be  permitted  to  refer  to  a 
piece  of  personal  experience  which  made  a  considerable 
impression  on  my  own  mind.  In  early  life  I  studied  with 
care  what  the  late  Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  had  to  say  on 
the  subject  of  the  unity  of  Isaiah  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament  (second  edition),  of  date  1857.  He  had 
already  made  considerable  advance  in  his  critical  positions, 
but  he  still  held  to,  and  defended,  Isaiah's  authorship  of 
the  second  part  of  the  book.  He  gave  Knobel's  objec- 
tions at  length,  and  learnedly  replied  to  them  seriatim. 
He  adduced  counter-arguments  in  favour  of  the  authen- 
ticity, including  arguments  drawn  from  diction,  linguistic 
colouring,  circle  of  ideas  and  images,  &c.  A  little  later 
I  became  acquainted  with  Dr.  Davidson's  larger  Intro- 
duction (3  vols.,  1862),  and  here  met  with  a  surprise.  It 
was  not  simply  that  the  author  had  in  the  interval 
become  convinced  of  the  exilian  date  of  Is.  xl.^;  that 
was  conceivable.  What  did  astonish  me  was  that  in  these 
short  five  years  all  his  judgments  on  the  details  of  the 
arguments  had  undergone 

92 


"Settled  Results"  in  Criticism 

A   COMPLETE    REVERSAL. 

All  the  pros  at  a  stroke  had  become  cons  ;  all  the  cons, pros. 
Diction,  circle  of  ideas,  linguistic  peculiarities,  had 
changed  sides.  Everything  that  was  convincing  before 
had  become  invalid  ;  everything  that  was  unconvincing 
before  had  become  demonstrable.  I  felt  instinctively 
that  there  was  something  deeper  in  this  than  mere 
change  of  literary  judgment;  that  a  new  standpoint  had 
been  adopted  which  controlled  the  judgment.  It  was 
like  what  the  late  Prof.  Romanes  tells  of  Professor 
Clifford  at  Cambridge  :  "  Clifford  had  only  just  moved  at 
a  bound  from  the  extreme  of  asceticism  to  that  of  infidelity 
— an  individual  instance  which  I  deem  of  particular 
interest  in  the  present  connection,  as  showing  the  domina- 
ting influence  of  a  forcedly  emotional  character  even  on  so 
powerful  an  intellectual  one,  for  the  rationality  of  the 
whole  structure  of  Christian  belief  cannot  have  so 
reversed  its  poles  within  a  few  months."  *  The  percep- 
tion of  this  in  Dr.  Davidson  determined  me  to  be 
cautious  in  accepting  critical  conclusions  en  bloc,  and  I 
have  never  had  reason  to  regret  the  resolve. 
It  is,  I  think, 

A  FAIR   QUESTION 

for  criticism  to  raise — one,  I  mean,  fairly  arising  out  of  the 
phenomena  of  the  book — whether  in  certain  of  the  later 
chapters  the  standpoint  of  the  prophet  is  not  actually;  as 
most  will  admit  it  to  be  ideally,  in  the  exile.  But  the  course 
of  criticism  itself  shows  that  it  is  a  question  not  quite  so 
easily  settled  as  many  suppose.  G'esenius  was  for  long 
thought,  with  good  reason,  to  have  established,  with 
superabundance  of  learning,  the  unity  of  Is.  xl.-lxvi.,  and 
his  arguments  constitute  a  strong  bulwark  still  against  the 
assailants  of  that  unity.  But  was  it  exilic  ?  Dr.  Cheyne 
*  Thoughts  on  Religion,  pp.  137-8. 

93 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

took  an  important  step  when,  in  1880-2,  he  allowed  that 
there  were  a  considerable  number  of  passages  in  2  Isaiah 
which  clearly,  had  a  Palestinian,  some  of  them  a  pre- 
exilian,  character,  and  could  not  be  reconciled  with  an 
origin  in  the  exile.  It  is  now  usual  to  assume  for  these 
portions  a  late  />os/-exilian  origin.  But  apart  from  un- 
suitability  of  contents,  and  that  linguistic  unity  with 
other  sections  which  Gesenius  established,  where  is  the 
evidence  or  probability  of  a  prophet  of  the  rank  of  Isaiah 
arising,  say,  in  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  ? 

To  such  considerations  fall  to  be  added  the  linguistic 
and  other  relations  with  the  first  part  of  the  book,  on 
which  the  older  defenders  of  the  Isaianic  authorship 
rightly  insisted.  It  will  not  be  surprising  if  by-and-by 
criticism  declares  itself  again  for  the  unity  of  the  bulk  of 
the  book,  with,  perhaps,  some  editorial  revision,  intro- 
ducing, e.g.,  the  name  "  Cyrus "  into  the  two  verses 
where  it  occurs. +  Such  a  criticism  might  find  support 
in  the  fact  that  a  destruction  of  the  city  and  temple 
and  deportation  to  Babylon,  were  unquestionably  looked 
for  as  near  in  the  days  of  Micah  and  Isaiah  (cf.  Amos  ii. 
5  ;  Mic.  iii.  12  ;  iv.  10  ;  Is.  vi.  II,  12 ;  xxxix.  6,  7 :  always 
with  hope  of  restoration,  Is.  xi.  II,  &c),  though,  as 
Jeremiah  narrates  (xxvi.  17-19),  the  fulfilment  of  the 
threatening  was  postponed,  on  account  of  the  repentance 
of  king  and  people. 

*  See  his  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  ii.  pp.  211  ff.,  and  the  Commentary 
on  Is.  lvi.  9,  lvii.,  &c. 

t  It  is  noteworthy  that  already  in  the  book  of  the  Son  of  Sirach 
(c.  200  B.C.)  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  the  later  prophecies  is  firmly 
assumed  (Eccles.  xlviii.  22-25).  Isaiah  had  a  school,  or  company,  of 
disciples,  to  whom  was  entrusted  the  collection  and  preservation  of 
his  oracles  (Is.  viii.  16-17) ;  to  them  probably  are  due  any  later  oracles, 
if  such  are  admitted  in  the  book.  The  prophecies  to  whose  fulfilment 
appeal  is  made  in  Is.  xli.  22_^";  xliv.  25-28  ;  xlv.  21,  &c,  are,  most 
naturally,  these  very  prophecies  of  the  book,  the  fulfilment  of  which 
would  then  be  seen. 

94 


V 

Israel's  God  and  Worship 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

DR.  F.  DELITZSCH  has  expressively  described  the 
Wellhausen  theory  by  saying  that  its  effect  has 
been  to  "  lift  off  its  hinges  the  history  of  worship 
and  literature  in  Israel  as  hitherto  accepted."*  What 
was  at  the  top  it  shifts  to  the  bottom.  It  is  not,  however, 
simple  change  of  place  that  is  in  question.  The  new 
theory  not  only  inverts  the  Bible's  own  account  of  Israel's 
history  and  institutions  ;  it  cancels  that  history  in  large 
part  altogether,  and  proposes  for  acceptance  another 

WHOLLY  RECONSTRUCTED 

view  of  the  development  of  religious  ideas  and  laws 
among  the  Hebrews.  Some  points  in  this  radically 
changed  and  avowedly  revolutionary  theory  of  religion 
have  already  been  before  us.  It  is  now  necessary  to  give 
it  closer  attention,  in  its  contrast  with  the  view  presented 
in  the  Bible  itself. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  nerve  of  the  new 
theory  is  the  idea  of  natural  evolution.  The  more 
believing  scholars  recognise  the  inadequacy  of  this  prin- 
ciple to  fit  the  facts,  and,  accepting  the  framework  of  the 
scheme,  work  into  it  the  idea  of  "  revelation  "  to  explain 
the  higher  elements  in  the  prophetic  teaching.  But  the 
originators  and  leading  expounders  of  the  theory  (Kuenen, 
Wellhausen,  Duhm,  Smend,   Stade,  Guthe,    &c.)   know 

*  Luthardt's  Zeitschrift,  1880,  p.  279. 

97  h 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

nothing  of  any  "  revelation  "  other  than  is  given  in  the 
development  of  the  inherent  powers  of  man's  religious 
nature.  As  Kuenen  states  it  in  a  typical  passage:  "  So 
soon  as  we  derive  a  separate  part  of  Israel's  religious  life 
directly  from  God,  and  allow  the  supernatural  or  immedi- 
ate revelation  to  intervene  in  even  one  single  point,  so 
long  also  our  view  of  the  whole  continues  to  be  incorrect. 
.     .     .     .     It  is  the  supposition  of 

A   NATURAL   DEVELOPMENT 

alone  which  accounts  for  all  the  phenomena."*  Kuenen's 
own  book  on  The  Religion  of  Israel  is  constructed  on  this 
principle,  and  it  is  from  this  basis,  whatever  modifica- 
tions more  earnestly-minded  men  may  introduce  into  it 
— and  these  leave  much  to  be  desired — that  the  theory  as 
a  whole  is  to  be  understood. 

As  recent  popular  expositions  of  this  theory  by  writers 
who  do  in  some  degree  accept  the  idea  of  "  revelation  " 
may  be  mentioned  Mr.  Addis's  Hebrew  Religion  to  the 
Establishment  of  Judaism  under  Ezra,  already  noticed, 
and  Prof.  Karl  Marti's  Religion  of  the  Old  Testament  A  It 
was  seen  in  an  earlier  paper  how  vigorously  the  founda- 
tions of  this  theory  of  religion,  in  its  successive  stages  of 
"nomad  or  Bedouin,"  "agricultural"  (settled  life  in 
Canaan),  "  prophetic,"  and  "  legal  "  religion,  were  assailed 
by  H.  Winckler  in  his  Eisenach  address.  Winckler 
himself  represents  the  not  less  extreme,  but  very  opposite 
view,  that  the  higher  religious  ideas  in  Israel's  religion 
(its  monotheism  included)  were  largely  an 

INHERITANCE   FROM   BABYLONIA. 

They  came  in,  however,  at  the  beginning,  not  at  the  end, 
of  Israel's  history.  The  reaction  has  done  good  service 
in  that  it  has  set  critical  writers  on  the   task   of  very 

*  Prophets  and  Prophecy,  p.  4. 

t  Die  Religion  des  A  T  unter  den  Religionen  des  vorderen  Orients. 

98 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

vigorously  defending  the  uniqueness  and  originality  of 
Israel's  religion,  thereby  strengthening  the  hold  on  the 
idea  of  revelation  ;  while  the  Winckler  school  is  not  less 
effectually  disposing  of  many  of  the  false  assumptions 
that  underlie  the  Wellhausen  scheme  of  the  history  and 
religion.  I  shall  keep  these  instructive  conflicts  in  view 
in  the  defence  of  the  Biblical  representation,  which  reaps 
its  advantage  from  both. 

I. 

The  way  is  now  open  for  sketching,  as  briefly  as  I  can, 
the  outlines  of  this  new  theory  of  the  religion  of  Israel. 

It  is  important  to  notice  at  the  outset  how  much  at 
once  drops  out. 

THE   PATRIARCHAL   PERIOD — 

e.g.,  in  Mr.  Addis's  sketch,  wholly  disappears.  Certain 
writers,  as  Dr.  Driver,  recognise  a  "  kernel "  of  historical 
truth  in  the  patriarchal  narratives — how  much,  how 
little,  is  never  clear ;  but  the  prevailing  tendency  is  to 
resolve  the  whole  into  tribal  legend,  in  which  nothing 
remains  but  vague  reminiscences  of  tribal  movements, 
and  ideas  and  events  of  later  times,  thrown  back  into  the 
form  of  family  history.  How  can  it  be  otherwise,  it  is 
asked,  where  the  narratives  are  perhaps  a  thousand  years 
later  than  the  traditions  which  they  record  and  embellish  ? 
Of  patriarchal  religion  in  the  Biblical  sense,  therefore, 
there  can  be  no  speech.  What  takes  its  place  is  a  con- 
geries of  Semitic  superstitions,  inferred  from  analogy  and 
stray  hints  in  the  narratives  ;  belief  in  the  haunting  pre- 
sence of  ghosts  and  spirits  :  in  the  animation  of  natural 
objects,  as  stones,  wells,  trees  ;  animal-worship,  ancestor- 
worship,  use  of  amulets  and  charms,  &c.  Prof.  Kautzsch 
calls  the  pre-Mosaic  religion  "  polydaemonism,"  and 
thinks  that  at  this  stage  "  God"  can  hardly  be  spoken  of. 

99 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

Of  Israel  itself,  or  the  tribes  of  which  it  came  to  be 
composed,  nothing  up  to  this  point  is  supposed  to  be 
positively  known.  The  nomadic  life  led  some  of  these 
tribes  into  Egypt,  and  there  they  fell  into  bondage.  The 
history  of  Israel  as  a  nation  begins  with 

THE   MOSAIC  AGE. 

It  is  a  moot  question,  as  already  seen,  how  far  Moses  is 
to  be  recognised  as  a  real  personage  at  all.  Writers  like 
Cheyne  and  Meyer  deny  his  historical  existence,  but 
most  allow  him  a  more  or  less  shadowy  reality  and 
activity.  Those  who  go  farthest  regard  him  as  the 
leader  who,  in  the  name  of  Yahweh  (Jehovah)  first 
gathered  the  tribes  into  a  unity,  led  them  out  of  Egypt 
and  across  the  Red  Sea,  then  pledged  them  at  Sinai  to 
some  kind  of  covenant  with  Yahweh.  How  the  Israelites 
got  out  of  Egypt,  escaped  pursuit,  and  effected  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Sea,  ascribed  to  a  happy  "  coincidence,"  is 
got  over  by  phrases,  but  is  not  satisfactorily  explained. 
Who  "Yahweh"  was — a  god  of  the  Kenites,  a  new  god 
to  the  Israelites,  possibly  a  god  known  earlier  in  some  of 
the  tribes — is  again  a  moot  question.  Kuenen  identifies 
Yahweh  with  Moloch.  A  favourite  view  is  that  he  was 
the  storm-god  of  Sinai.  In  any  case,  he  became  hence- 
forth the  god  of  Israel.  He  was  in  no  sense  the  sole  god, 
nor  was  thought  of  as  such  by  his  worshippers.  He  was 
one  amongst  many,  the  god  of  this  particular  people — 

"  A   TRIBAL   GOD," 

like  Chemosh  of  Moab.     So  also  he  continued  to  be  till 
the  days  of  the  prophets. 

It  does  not  follow  that,  though  the  personality  of  Moses 
is  allowed,  the  history  given  of  him  in  the  Pentateuchal 
books  is  accepted.     The  opposite  is  the  case.     The  law- 

ioo 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

giver's  personality  and  work  are  enveloped  in  the  folds 
of  late  legend,  through  the  mists  of  which  we  can  make 
out  little  that  is  certain  regarding  him.  The  one  thing 
sure  is  that  most  of  the  things  we  are  told  about  him  did 
not  happen.  The  narratives  in  Exodus,  Kuenen  informs 
us,  are  "utterly  unhistorical."  *  He  may  have  laid  the 
foundations  of  law  by  his  oral  decisions  (Ex.  xviii.),  but 
he  certainly  did  not  receive,  or  write,  or  convey  to  Israel, 
any  of  the  Codes  of  law  connected  with  his  name.  His 
connection  with  legislation  is  a  late  tradition.  He  did 
not  give  the  Decalogue,  for  there  was  no  thought  at  that 
stage  of  forbidding  worship  by  images.  Yahweh  remained 
the  god  of  the  tribes,  but  what  is  told  of  the  mode  of  his 
worship  is  mostly 

POST-EXILIAN    FICTION. 

There  may,  e.g.,  have  been  an  ark,  but  it  was  probably 
originally  only  a  fetish-chest,  containing  perhaps  a  couple 
of  meteoric  stones.  There  may  have  been  a  rude  tent  to 
cover  it,  but  assuredly  not  the  "  tabernacle  "  described 
in  Exodus.  Aaronic  priesthood,  sacrifices,  prescribed 
feasts,  &c. ;  nothing  of  that  kind  then  existed,  or  was  con- 
ceived of. 

A  new  stage  commences  with  the  experience  of 

SETTLED   LIFE   IN   CANAAN. 

The  nomadic  life  is  ended  ;  the  people  have  now  entered 
on  an  agricultural  and  city  life  as  settlers  in  a  land 
which  had  long  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of  civilisation. 
Their  new  surroundings  speedily  tell  on  the  form  of  their 
religion.  Yahweh  begins  to  show  his  superiority  to  the 
gods  of  the  Canaanites  (Baalim),  according  to  Budde,  by 
"  absorbing  them  into  himself,"  and  much  of  their  wor- 
ship now  becomes  his.  The  Canaanite  sanctuaries  are 
*  Hexatcuch,  p  42 

101 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

appropriated  and  converted  by  legend  into  holy  places  of 
the  patriarchs.  There  is  as  yet  no  law  against  high 
places  or  graven  images — not,  therefore,  even  the  law  of 
Ex.  xx-xxiii. — and  Yahweh  is  lawfully  served  under  every 
green  tree.  The  tribes  were  for  long  a  disorganised 
throng,  weak,  oppressed  by  surrounding  peoples,  without 
a  sense  of  unity.  The  pictures  of  alternate  oppression 
and  deliverance  after  repentance  in  the  Book  of  Judges 
are  quite  unhistorical.  Yahweh  himself  is  conceived  of  as 
a  limited,  passionate,  vengeful  being,  arbitrary  and  cruel 
in  his  commands  and  actions ;  a  god  of  battles,  not  yet 
clothed  with  any  high  ethical  qualities.  The  Israelites 
are  still,  in  short,  little  better  than  a  barbarous  horde. 
With  Samuel  we  reach  the 

TRANSITION   TO   THE   MONARCHY, 

and  somewhat  higher  ideas  begin  to  prevail.  The  picture 
of  Samuel,  however,  and  after  him  of  David,  given  in  the 
history,  is  not  according  to  fact.  The  theocratic  drapery 
with  which  both  characters  are  invested  must  be  stripped 
off.*  The  true  Samuel  was  originally  a  village  "  seer," 
selling  his  oracles  for  reward,  and  the  prophetic  bands 
that  took  their  origin  from  him  were  companies  of 
frenzied  enthusiasts,  whom  the  common  people  were  dis- 
posed to  look  on  as  "madmen"  (Cf.  2  Kings  ix.  11). 
The  saying,  "  Is  Saul  also  among  the  prophets  ?  "  is  not 
to  be  understood  (so  some)  as  an  expression  of  reverence, 
but  rather  as  one  of  regret  that  so  hopeful  a  youth  should 
have  fallen  into  such  disreputable  company  !  Wellhausen 
can  hardly  find  words  strong  enough  to  express  his  idea 
of  the  low  state  of  prophetic  orders  before  Elijah.  David, 

•"The  mere  recapitulation  of  the  contents  of  this  narrative,"  says 
Wellhausen,  of  1  Sam.  vii.,  "makes  us  feel  at  once  what  a  pious 
make-up  it  is,  and  how  full  of  inherent  impossibility." — Hist,  of  Israel^ 
p.  228. 

102 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

Samuel's  protege,  was  no  doubt  a  great  warrior  and  a 
powerful  king,  a  poet,  too,  and  fond  of  music  of  a  kind, 
but  in  no  way  the  saint  and  psalmist  that  later  tradition 
makes  him.  "  More  easily,"  says  Prof.  Cheyne,  "could 
Carl  the  Great  have  written  St.  Bernard's  hymn  than 
the  David  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  the  fifty-first  Psalm."* 
Yahweh,  to  him,  was  still  a  local  deity. 
The  chief  thing  to  be  noticed  in 

THE   INTERVENING   PERIOD 

till  the  rise  of  prophecy  is  the  inversion  in  the  new  theory 
of  all  customary  {i.e.,  Biblical)  judgments  on  men  and 
events.  Solomon's  temple  had  not  the  religious  signi- 
ficance ascribed  to  it  in  the  history,  but  was  a  private 
undertaking  of  the  king,  of  a  piece  with  his  other  schemes 
of  aggrandisement,  and  entirely  under  royal  control. 
Jeroboam's  was  a  justifiable  rebellion,  and  his  setting  up 
of  the  calves  for  worship  at  Bethel  and  Dan  (i  Kings  xii. 
28-29)  was  but  a  revival  of  the  old  time-honoured  wor- 
ship of  Yahweh  in  Israel  under  the  form  of  an  ox.  Ahab 
is  rehabilitated  as,  in  Mr.  Addis's  judgment,  "  with  all 
his  faults,  a  brave  and  able  king,"  to  whom  much 
injustice  is  done  in  the  history,  t  Even  Elijah,  who, 
though  he  opposed  the  building  of  a  temple  to  Baal,  is 
held  to  have  had  no  protest  to  make  against  the  golden 
calves  ["  nor,  again,  do  we  hear  that  he  made  any  pro- 
test against  the  prevalent  worship  of  Jehovah   under  the 

*Aids  to  the  Devout  Study  of  Criticism,  p.  28. 

fHeb.  Rel.,  p.  123.  He  further  writes  : — "  We  are  not  to  suppose 
that  Ahab  ever  dreamed  of  renouncing  his  allegiance  to  Jehovah  : 
much  less  did  he  tempt  his  subjects  to  do  so.  .  .  .  Nor  is  it 
credible  that  Jezebel,  his  queen,  seriously  set  herself  to  exterminate 
Jehovah's  prophets,  and  all  but  succeeded  in  her  task.  .  .  He  had 
concluded  an  alliance  with  Tyre  .  .  .  so  he  took  it  to  be  a  natural 
thing  that  a  temple  of  the  Phoenician  god  should  be  .erected  in 
Samaria  (pp.  130-1). 

I03 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

form  of  an  ox  "],*  is  not  allowed  by  Mr.  Addis  to  be  a 
monotheist  ("vVellhausen  disagrees  with  him  here). 
Worship  on  high  places,  and  the  use  of  images  were,  of 
course,  perfectly  legitimate.  Kuenen  goes  further,  and 
carries  over  most  of  the  abominations  practised  by  the 
heathen,  and  sternly  condemned  by  the  prophets,  into 
the  worship  of  Yahweh. f 

II. 

Thus  things  remained  till 

THE   AGE   OF   THE    PROPHETS, 

commencing  with  Amos,  when,  as  the  result  of  the 
enlarged  conceptions  wrought  by  the  Assyrian  invasions, 
a  revolution  took  place  in  the  more  spiritual  minds  in 
regard  to  Yahweh  and  his  worship.  By  a  sudden  advance 
in  ideas  Yahweh  is  apprehended  as  the  one  sole  God  and 
ruler  of  the  world;  His  character  and  government  are 
righteous ;  ritual  is  condemned  as  displeasing  to  Him, 
and  His  true  service  is  seen  to  consist  in  doing  justly, 
loving  mercy,  and  walking  humbly  with  God  (Mic.  vi. 
8).  Inward  purity  of  heart  is  set  before  ceremonial 
cleanness  ;  the  folly  of  idolatry  is  perceived,  and  strenu- 
ous efforts  are  made  to  effect  its  overthrow.  In  all  this 
the  prophets  were  at  war  with  traditional  usage  as  well 
as  with  prevailing  practice;  it  was  something  new  they 
were  introducing.!  They  were  not  endowed  with  the 
power  of  prediction,  in  the  sense  of  supernatural  foresight, 

*p.  131.  Still  less  do  we  hear  that  Elijah  approved  of  the  calf- 
worship.     Is  not  condemnation  implied  in  1  Kings  xxi.  21-24? 

\Rel.  of  Israel  i.  p.  72. 

jCertain  critics  do  not  make  the  transition  quite  so  abrupt,  and 
recognise  ethical  elements  in  the  conception  of  Yahweh,  which  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  prophetic  teaching.  Still,  "  monotheism  "  begins 
with  the  prophets. 

104 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

but  they  gave  bold,  often  shrewd,  forecasts  of  the  future, 
based  on  their  reading  of  the  times,  which  sometimes 
were  fulfilled,  and  oftener  were  not.  Their  teaching  and 
unflinching  conflict  and  testimony  for  the  truths  of  an 
exalted  "  ethical  monotheism  "  mark  the  highest  point  in 
Old  Testament  religion. 

As  the  ideas  of  the  prophets  gained  strength,  attempts 
were  from  time  to  time  made  to  translate  them  into 
practice.  The  best  known  and  most  remarkable  of 
these  efforts  was 

THE    REFORMATION  OF  JOSIAH 

occasioned  by  the  discovery  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
(or  some  earlier  form  of  it)  in  the  temple,  as  narrated  in 
2  Kings  xxii.  This  book,  which  embodies  older  laws, 
was  composed  with  the  express  design  of  bringing  about 
a  centralisation  of  worship  in  Jerusalem,  and  putting  an 
end  to  the  (hitherto  lawful)  worship  of  Yahweh  and 
other  Gods  at  the  high  places.*  It  was  hidden  in  the 
temple,  then  produced  by  Hilkiah,  and  presented  to 
Josiah,  on  whose  mind  it  made  an  extraordinary  impres- 
sion. The  book  was  accepted  as  the  authentic  law  of 
Moses  (2  Kings  xxiii.  24,  25),  and  on  the  basis  of  it  a 
new  covenant  was  entered  into  between  the  King, 
people,  and  Yahweh  (xxiv.  1-3).  The  effects  were  Josiah's 
vigorous  crusade  against  the  high  places  in  Southern  and 
Northern  Israel,  and  suppression  of  their  worship,  the 
cleansing  of  city  and  temple  from  idolatry,  and,  when  all 
was  finished,  the  observance  of  a  great  passover  (Ch. 
xxiii.).  The  enthusiasm  was  short-lived,  and  the  writings 
of  later  prophets  show  that,  after  Josiah's  death,  the  old 
evils  were  soon  all  in  full  force  again. 

*The  laws  in  Deut.  xviii.,  &c,  for  the  "  Levites  "  are  supposed  to  be 
a  provision  made  for  the  •■  disestablished  priests"  of  these  high 
places. 

105 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

The  nation  from  this  point  rapidly  drifted  to  its  ruin. 
The  Northern  Kingdom  had  been  extinguished  in  721 
B.C.  by  the  Assyrians  ;  now  came  the  final  overthrow  of 
Judah  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (586  B.C.)  and  the  carrying 
away  of  the  people  into 

CAPTIVITY    IN    BABYLON. 

The  temple  was  burned,  the  ark  destroyed,  the  ritual 
suspended  ;  the  people  were  torn  away  from  their  native 
soil.  Here  came  the  opportunity  of  the  priests.  Let 
them  gather  up  in  written  form  for  preservation  what 
could  be  recalled  of  the  old  cultus,  and  draw  up  a  new 
programme  of  ceremonial  observance  for  the  future,  in 
case  the  way  should  be  opened  for  them  to  return.  So 
many  hands  set  to  work.  Ezekiel  led  the  way  in  his 
sketch  of  the  temple  and  its  ordinances  in  a  restored  land 
(Ch.  xl.-xlviii.).  His  sketch  was  not  accepted,  but  one 
feature  in  it  proved  to  be  of  decisive  importance.  In  Ch. 
xliv.  of  his  book  he  had  denounced  the  priesthood  for 
permitting  the  service  of  uncircumcised  strangers  in  the 
sanctuary  (really,  it  is  held,  the  ordinary  custom  since 
Solomon's  time),  and  had  pronounced  sentence  of 
"  degradation "  on  the  unfaithful  priests,  assigning  to 
them  this  lower  rank  of  service,  while  the  priesthood 
proper  was  reserved  for  the  faithful  "sons  of  Zadok." 
Here,  it  is  claimed,  is  the  clear  explanation  of 

THE   ORDER   OF    "  LEVITES  " 

in  the  sanctuary  in  post-exilian  times.  They  are  none 
other  than  these  •'  degraded  priests  "  ;  therefore  not  of 
older  date  than  Ezekiel.  Busy  brains  and  pens  carried 
forward  the  task  of  the  collection  of  old  laws,  the  con- 
coction of  new  ones,  and  the  working  up  of  the  whole 
into  a  grand  "  Code,"  represented  as  having  been  given 
by  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  but  really,  in  greater  part, 

106 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

the  fruit  of  their  own  invention.  Thus  arose  the  fabric 
of  the  so-called  Levitical  Law.  A  history  was  made  to 
suit,  and  the  finished  product  was  brought  from  Babylon 
by  Ezra,  when  he  came  to  Jerusalem  in  458  B.C.,  some 
seventy-eight  years  after  the  return.  Fourteen  years  later 
(444  B.C.)  it  was  read — or  if,  as  Wellhausen  thinks,  it 
was  by  this  time  joined  to  the  older  JE  histories, 
and  to  Deuteronomy,  the  whole  Pentateuch  was  read 
to,  and  accepted  by,  the  people  as  "the  law  of  Moses" 
(Neh.  viii). 
Thus 

POST-EXILIAN   JUDAISM 

was  founded,  and  the  development  of  the  religion  was 
completed.  The  temple  had  been  already  re-built  by 
Zerubbabel,  and  everything  was  ready  for  organisation 
on  the  new  lines.  The  Psalter  is  the  "  hymn-book  "  of  this 
second  temple,  and  is  mostly,  if  not  wholly,  the  product 
of  post-exilian  times.  Many  of  the  other  books  in  the 
Bible,  as  Job,  Proverbs,  Ruth,  Joel,  of  course  Chronicles, 
are  also  post-exilian,  and  the  process  of  addition  went  on 
till  possibly  the  century  before  Christ.  Daniel  is  a  book 
written  to  comfort  the  pious  in  the  persecutions  of  the 
Maccabean  time. 

III. 

Thus  I  have  sketched,  I  think  not  unfairly,  for  I  wish 
to  give  it  full  justice,  the  theory  of  religion  as  it  is  ordin- 
arily presented  by  writers  of  the  Wellhausen  persuasion. 
There  are  naturally  shadings  of  the  picture,  sometimes  in 
a  more  extreme,  sometimes  in  a  more  cautious  direction, 
but  the  main  outlines  are,  beyond  a  question,  those  which 
I  have  indicated. 

What  have  I  now  to  oppose  to  it  ?  I  answer  in  a 
word,  I  simply  oppose  to  it 

107 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

THE   WHOLE   LITERATURE   OF  THE    BIBLE. 

The  whole  theory  is,  as  I  regard  it,  an  inversion  of  the 
facts — the  attempt  to  make  a  pyramid  stand  upon  its 
apex,  instead  of  on  its  base.  And  this,  I  think,  it  is  not 
really  difficult  to  prove. 

Let  us  revert  again  to  the  commencement.  One 
speaks  sometimes  of  the  play  of  Hamlet  with  Hamlet  left 
out.  But  that,  surely,  would  be  a  small  matter  com- 
pared with  the  religion  and  history  of  Israel  with 

THE    PATRIARCHS 

left  out.  What  is  the  main  thing  in  the  pre-Mosaic 
religion  of  Israel,  if  not  the  call  of  Abraham,  and  those 
covenants  with,  and  promises  to,  the  fathers,  on  which 
the  whole  after  development  rests  ?  Is  this  merely 
legend  ?  The  whole  character  of  the  tradition  speaks 
against  the  idsa,  not  to  refer  to  the  minute  corrobora- 
tions which  archaeological  research  has  latterly  been 
furnishing  of  the  fidelity  of  its  contents.* 

But  let  us  take  the  later  history,  where  it  may  be 
thought  that  the  foundations  are  surer.  The  Book  of 
Deuteronomy  continually  assumes  the  earlier  history,  and 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  as  the  core  of  it  (Deut.  i.  8 ; 
vi.  10,  &c).  The  so-called  JE  history  also,  allowed  to 
go  back  in  one  of  its  forms,  at  least,  to  the  ninth  or 
tenth  century,  has  the  full  record  of  these  things.  The 
clear,  consentient  narratives  of  the  Exodus  embodied  in 
that  history  have  as  their  indubitable  postulate  that  the 
God  who  appeared  to  Moses,  and  wrought  the  salvation 
of  the  people,  was  the  God  of  "the  fathers"  (Ex.  iii. 
6  ff).  Who  were  these  "  fathers"  ?  None  but  the  patri- 
archs of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  Probe  the  national  con- 
sciousness of  Israel  at  what  stage  we  may,  this  thought 
of  the  "  fathers  "  is  found  fundamental  to  it.     Yet  all  this 

*These  will  be  referred  to  again. 

J08 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

is  dismissed  as  if  the  ignoring  of  it  did  not  merit  even  a 
word  of  explanation  ! 

What,  next,  is  the  proof  of  the  picture  of 

PRE-MOSAIC   RELIGION 

which  is  substituted  for  the  Biblical  ?  It  would  not  in 
itself  be  strange  if,  with  the  early  Hebrews,  as  among 
ourselves,  traces  of  popular  superstitions  were  found 
mingling  with  the  higher  elements  in  their  religion.  But 
how  scant  and  precarious  is  the  evidence  which  the 
critics  can  adduce  even  for  this  assumption  ?  It  consists 
chiefly  of  sporadic  intimations  in  the  narrative  on  which 
an  interpretation  is  forced  in  no  way  natural  or  necessary, 
and  often  positively  inadmissible.  Is  it  stone  worship  ? 
Jacob  set  up  and  consecrated  a  pillar  as  a  memorial  of 
his  vision,  and  called  the  stone  (or  as  it  is  in  a  neighbour- 
ing verse,  "the  place")  Bethel  (Gen.  xxviii.  11-22).  This 
is  interpreted  to  mean  that  Jacob  anointed  the  stone  "in 
homage  to  the  indwelling  deity  " — «■"  unction  being  in  the 
East  an  act  of  courtesy  co  a  guest,  was  fitly  offered  to 
the  spirit  in  the  stone  which  the  worshipper  desired  to 
conciliate "  (Addis,  p.  26).  Where  in  the  Book  of 
Genesis  are  the  faintest  hints  justifying  such  an  interpre- 
tation ?  Is  it  sacred  trees?  The  patriarchs  planted 
trees,  and  sat  under  the  shade  of  them.  Abraham  lived 
at  "  the  oaks  of  Mamre."  Does  this  justify  the  belief 
that  a  spirit  was  supposed  to  be  dwelling  in  these  trees  ? 
What  if  certain  trees  in  Canaan  had  names  (Gen.  xii.  6  ; 
Judges  ix.  37)  which  might  imply  such  superstitions.  Did 
the  patriarchs,  with  their  higher  enlightenment,  share  in 
these?  So  the  patriarchs  dug  "  wells,"  and  there  was  a 
place  called  "  Beersheba,"  "  the  well  of  the  oath."  Does 
the  fact  that  "  Beersheba  was  a  favourite  place  of 
pilgrimage  even  for  subjects  of  the  northern  kingdom  " 
in  the   time   of  Amos   (Amos  v.  5;  viii.   14)  justify  the 

109 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

inference  that  "  evidently  it  was  a  sacred  well  "  ?  (Addis, 
p.  31).  Or  is  this  worship  of  wells  proved  by  the  old 
snatch  of  Hebrew  song  in  Num.  xxi.  17,  18  :  "  Rise  up, 
O  well ;  sing  ye  to  it  "  ?  Mr.  Addis  wisely  discards 
"  totemism,"  or  worship  of  animals  from  which  the 
worshipper  claimed  descent  (p.  32)  ;  but  he  has  a  cling- 
ing to  the  idea  of  "  sacred  animals,"  of  which  a  proof  is 
seen  in  "  the  stone  of  Zoheleth  ('  serpent-stone,'  probably 
a  place-name,  like  hundreds  among  ourselves,  without 
the  slightest  connection  with  serpent- worship),  which  is 
by  En-rogel  "  (1  Kings  i.  9).  The  proof  of  "  worship  of 
the  dead,"  which  is  a  favourite  hypothesis,  rests  on  no 
better  foundation.  What  are  we  to  say  of  the  proof 
drawn  from  the  pillar  set  up  by  Jacob  at  Rachel's  grave 
(Gen.  xxxv.  20)  ?  That  consultation  of  the  dead  was 
prohibited  by  the  law  (Deut.  xviii.  11;  Lev.  xix.  31)  is 
surely  a  poor  evidence  that  it  was  part  of  the  recognised 
religion  ? 

IV. 

Where,  as  a  next  branch  of  the  case,  is  the  proof  to  be 
found  that  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  Israelites,  was,  till 
the  time  of  the  prophets,  only  a  "  tribal"  God?  Not 
in  the  Bible's  own  representations,  where,  from  the  time 
of  Abraham  down,  the  only  recognised  conception  of 
God  is 

A   MONOTHEISTIC   ONE.* 

The  Book  of  Genesis  is,  as  every  fair  mind  must 
acknowledge,  from  its  first  page  to  its  last,  a  monothe- 
istic book.  If  traces  of  a  worship  of  "teraphim"  are 
found  in  Laban's  family,  Jacob  put  the  images  away  from 
his  household,  as  incompatible  with  the  worship  of  the 

*[Ne\v  support  to  this  view  is  found  in  the  recently-published 
book  of  Prof.  Baentsch,  of  Jena,  on  "  Israelitish  Monotheism."] 

IIO 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

one  true  God  (Gen.  xxxv.  2,  4).  "The  theological  pre- 
suppositions of  different  parts  of  the  book  vary  widely  ; 
centuries  of  religious  thought,  for  example,  must  lie 
between  the  God  who  partakes  of  the  hospitality  of 
Abraham  under  a  tree  (xviii.)  and  the  majestic,  trans- 
cendent, invisible  Being  at  whose  word  the  worlds  are 
born."  So  writes  Mr.  McFadyen.*  On  Mr.  McFadyen's 
own  showing  of  dates,  very  many  centuries  did  not  lie 
between  the  two  narratives, t  and  I  believe  that  Gen.  i.  is 
far  older  than  he  supposes.  But,  whatever  the  anthro- 
pomorphisms of  the  so-called  J  (and  God  is  not 
immediately  to  be  identified  with  His  theophanies),  it  is 
admitted  by  even  so  radical  a  critic  as  Prof.  H.  P. 
Smith,  that,  in  Genesis,  they  are  brought  "  into  harmony 
with  the  strictest  monotheism. "t  It  is  possible  to 
produce  from  "J"  passages  on  God  as  exalted  as  any- 
thing in  the  Bible  (e.g.,  Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  19). 

In  Exodus  and  the  other  books  Jehovah  is  viewed  as 
the 

"god  of  all  the  earth," 

who,  of  His  free  grace  and  love,  has  chosen  Israel  to  be 
His  peculiar  people  (Gen.  xix.  5).  It  is  no  doubt  the 
case  that  many  in  Israel  failed  to  rise  to  the  height  of 
this  great  conception  ;  so  that,  even  if  Jephthah  spoke  in 
terms  which  implied  an  inadequate  conception  of 
Jehovah's  relation  to  Chemosh  (Judg.  ix.  24),  the  fact 
would  mean  but  little.  Most  probably,  however,  his 
language  is  only  a  form  of  accommodation  to  the  stand- 
point of  the  king  of  Ammon  (parallels  in  abundance  may 
be  found  in  missionary  literature).  The  other  passage 
commonly  cited,  viz.,  David's  being  driven  out  to  "  serve 

''■Old  Test.  Introd.  p.  8. 

tWellhausen    makes  the   stories  about   Abraham  the  very   latest 
creations  of  Israelitish  imagination. 
tO.  T.Hisl.  p.  16. 

Ill 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

other  gods  "  (i  Sam.  xxvi.  19)  is  strangely  misunderstood 
when  taken  to  mean  that  outside  of  Canaan  "  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  became  an  impossibility  ;  he  had  per- 
force to  '  serve  other  gods  '  in  the  land  of  his  exile  " 
(Addis,  p.  79).  Does  any  sane  mind  believe  that,  out- 
side of  Palestine — in  Moab,  for  example — David  did 
serve  other  gods  than  Jehovah  ?  Or  where  is  a  single 
instance  of  the  kind  to  be  found  ?  *  No,  Jehovah,  in 
the  minds  of  His  true  worshippers,  was  believed  in  as 
the  one  true  God,  universal  Lord  and  Ruler  in 
providence,  from  the  first,  and  the  prophets,  when  they 
came  on  the  scene,  never  dreamed  that  they  were  bring- 
ing in  any  new  doctrine,  but  preached  loyalty  and  obedi- 
ence to 

THE   SAME  JEHOVAH 

as  their  fathers  had  known  since  the  day  He  made  His 
covenant  with  them  at  Horeb.t 

The  proof  that,  till  prophetic  times,  image-worship 
was  a  legitimate  part  of  Israel's  religion,  equally  breaks 
down.  The  form  which  this  proof  usually  takes  is, 
indeed,  a  choice  example  of  the  methods  of  the  theory. 
We  point,  e.g.,  to  the  fact  that 

IMAGES   ARE    UNKNOWN 

in  the  legitimate  worship  of  God  in  Genesis.  The 
answer  is  that  this  is  late  and  untrustworthy  legend. 
We  point  as  a  cardinal  evidence  to  the  prohibition  of 
images  in  the  second  commandment.  We  are  told  that 
the  second  commandment  is  not  from  Moses.  We  ask 
for  a  reason.     We  are  told  it  cannot  be,  for  the  worship 

*The  same  expression  occurs  in  the  monotheistic  Book  of  Deut- 
eronomy (xxviii.  36-64). 

tin  these  contentions  we  have  in  the  main  Winckler  with  us.  It 
is  incredible  that  ideas  so  elevated  should  take  their  rise  in  the 
sudden  manner  supposed. 

112 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

of  images  was  common  in  Mosaic  times,  and  long  after. 
We  inquire  where  is  the  proof  of  this.  We  are  told  that 
Yahweh  was  worshipped  from  early  times  in  the  form  of 
an  ox.  We  press  again  for  evidence.  We  are  pointed 
to  Jeroboam's  two  calves.  But  how  do  these  prove  it  ? 
Because  Jeroboam  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  introducing 
a  new  form  of  worship,  and  there  are  traces  in  the  story 
of  Micah  in  Judges  that  of  old  an  idolatrous  worship  was 
set  up  in  Dan  (Judg.  xviii.  30,  31).  We  urge  the  facts 
that  this  was  evidently  a  schismatic  worship  (v.  31),  that 
there  is  no  trace  of  images  in  the  lawful  service  of 
Jehovah,  that  there  was  no  image  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem,  and  that  Jeroboam's  action  is  consistently 
denounced  as  "  sin."  All  avails  nothing,  and  Gideon's 
"ephod,"  and  even  the  brazen  serpent  of  Moses,  are 
pressed  into  the  proof  that  Jehovah  was  worshipped,  for- 
sooth, in  the  form  of  an  ox. 

The  argument  carries  us  next  to  Josiah's  reformation. 
That  Deuteronomy  produced  a  strong  impression  in 
Josiah's  mind,  and  led  to  his  reforms,  is  evident  from  the 
history.  But  I  maintain  that  nearly  every  other  point  in 
the  critical  case  rests  on 

ASSUMPTION   AND   FALLACY. 

The  hypothesis  of  "  pious  fraud,"  which  many  advocate, 
is  repugnant  to  every  right-thinking  mind.  If  we  turn 
to  the  narrative  in  2  Kings,  we  find  that  the  book  dis- 
covered in  the  temple  was  accepted  by  all  classes  as  a 
genuine  Mosaic  work.  It  violently  interfered  (on  the 
hypothesis)  with  powerful  existing  interests,  yet  no  one, 
then  or  after,  ventured  to  question  it.  If  we  consult  the 
book  itself,  we  find  that  it  claims  to  be  from  Moses  (Deut. 
xxxi.  9). 

It  is  a  fair  literary  question  how  far  the  book, 
in  its  present  form,  shows  signs  of  later  date  in  the  repro- 

113  I 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

duction,  editing,  and  annotation,*  of  those  last  addresses 
which  Moses  is  related  to  have  written,  and  delivered  to 
the  priests.  But  there  cannot  be  a  shadow  of  a  doubt 
that  the  book  claims  to  be  substantially 

A   WORK   OF   MOSES. 

It  embodies  old  laws  which  were  long  obsolete  in  the  age 
of  Josiah,  and  which  a  writer  in  that  age  could  have  no 
object  in  introducing.  It  is  alleged  to  have  been  written 
to  further  the  abolition  of  high  places,  and  promote 
centralisation  of  worship  ;  but  high  places  are  never 
mentioned  in  it.  The  assertion  that  its  provisions  for 
Levites  are  intended  for  "  the  disestablished  priests  "  of 
the  high  places  is  without  a  trace  of  support  in  the  text. 
As  shown  before,  a  central  sanctuary  was  the  ideal  of 
worship  in  Israel  from  the  beginning,  and  Deuteronomy 
does  no  more  than  hold  up  this  as  an  ideal  to  be  realised 
when  the  people  should  be  settled,  and  have  rest  from 
their  enemies  round  about  (Ch.  xii.  10).  On  the  fluctu- 
ating critical  theories  of  the  book  I  have  already  written. 

V. 

We  are  thus  brought,  finally,  to  the  Exile,  on  which  it 
is  not  necessary  to  add  much  to  what  has  been  adduced 
in  previous  papers.  When,  from  flights  of  theory,  one 
descends  to  cold  facts,  it  is  amazing  how  unreal 

THE   POST-EXILIAN    HYPOTHESIS 

A  of  the  origin  of  the  law  discovers  itself  to  be.  It  has  no 
foothold  in  any  one  genuine  fact  in  the  history.  Ezekiel's 
"  degradation  "  of  the  non-Zadokite  priests  (which  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  was  ever  carried  out),  in  no  way 

*Everyone  admits  this  of  the  last  chapter,  and  there  are  other 
parts  of  the  book  which  indicate  it  not  less  clearly. 

H4 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

contradicts,  but  rather  presupposes,  the  older  (broken) 
law  assigning  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary  to  the  Levites. 
The  supposed  activity  of  priests  and  scribes  in  collating 
and  manufacturing  laws,  and  stamping  on  them  a 
fictitious  Mosaic  character,  the  "  vehement  struggles  "  of 
the  degraded  priests  to  regain  their  lost  privileges 
(mirrored  in  the  story  of  Korah),  the  compilation  of  the 
laws  into  a  system  and  construction  of  a  Pentateuch  by, 
say,  Ezra,  are  bold  efforts  of  imagination  which  utterly  lack 
historical  attestation.  What  we  do  find  is  that,  when  the 
exiles  returned  from  Babylon,  nearly  a  century  before 
Ezra  produced  his  law,  Levites,  with  their  genealogies, 
were  present  in  considerable  force  (Ezra  ii.).  The  narra- 
tive in  Neh.  viii.  gives  no  hint  that  the  law  which  Ezra 
read  was  new ;  the  whole  account  plainly  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  it  was  old.  The  entire  congregation, 
with  priests  and  Levites,  accepted  it  with  unquestioning 
faith  as  "  the  law  of  Moses." 
The  objections  to  this  view  of 

THE   ANTIQUITY   OF   THE    LAW 

are  chiefly  two — its  alleged  irreconcilability  with  the 
simpler  provisions  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the  supposed 
silence  of  the  previous  history  as  to  its  peculiar  regula- 
tions. In  the  law,  e.g.,  it  is  said,  we  have  "  priests  and 
Levites,"  but  in  Deuteronomy  only  "  Levites,"  any  of 
whom  may  be  priests.  But  it  is  precisely  this  latter 
assertion  I  would  contest.  The  difference  is  explained 
largely  by  the  different  scope  of  the  two  writings.  In 
Deuteronomy  Moses  is  addressing  the  congregation, 
years  after  the  tribe  of  Levi  had  been  chosen,  and  when 
the  functions  of  its  several  members  were  well  known. 
His  language,  therefore,  has  regard,  prevailingly,  to  the 
tribe  as  a  whole.  The  Levitical  laws,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  specially  to  do  with  the  duties  of  the  priests,  and 

"5 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

only  incidentally  with  those  of  the  Levites.  Indeed,  in 
the  whole  book  of  Leviticus,  the  Levites,  with  the  solitary 
exception  of  Ch.  xxv.  32,  33,  are  not  so  much  as  named. 
The  expression  "  priests  and  Levites"  is  not  found  in  any 
part  of  the  Levitical  code,  any  more  than  in  Deuter- 
onomy. 

The  objection  from  silence  is  one  to  which,  for  a  reason 
given  in  a  previous  paper,  namely,  the  wilderness  form 
into  which  all  parts  of  the  law  are  cast,  too  much  import- 
ance should  not  be  given.  But  it  would  be  easy  to  show 
that  the  "silence"  has  been  much  exaggerated.  There 
are  numerous 

TRACES   OF   LEVITICAL   LAWS 

in  Deuteronomy  itself,  and,  as  before  shown,  the  main 
provisions  are  found  in  the  so-called  "  Law  of  Holiness," 
which  critics  like  Dr.  Driver  admit  to  be  in  substance 
pre-exilian.  Dr.  Driver  allows  that  "the  main  stock" 
of  the  Levitical  law  was  in  operation  before  the  exile. 
This  gives  up  the  case  in  principle,  for,  if  the  "  main 
stock "  is  compatible  with  ailence  in  the  history,  much 
else  may  be.  Prophetic  denunciations  of  a  religion  of 
mere  ritual  prove  nothing  against  the  Divine  origin  of  the 
ritual,  or  against  its  proper  use,  which  the  prophets 
themselves  in  many  ways  recognise.  On  the  other  hand, 
prophetic  books  and  historical  books  alike  conclusively 
attest  how  a  large  part  of  the  Levitical  law  was  already 
in  operation.  Such  a  passage  as  Is.  i.  13,  14,  e.g.,  is 
saturated  with  Levitical  vocabulary  ("new  moons," 
"  assembly,"  [convocation],  "  solemn  meeting,"  "  ap- 
pointed feasts,"  &c).  In  the  historical  books,  besides 
allusions  to  ark,  tabernacle,  Aaronic  priesthood,  high 
priest,  ephod,  shew-bread,  we  have  evidence  of  know- 
ledge of  festivals,  of  burnt-offerings,  peace-offerings,  meal- 
offerings,  drink-offerings,  probably  sin-offerings  as  well, 

116 


Israel's  God  and  Worship 

of  ritual  of  worship,  of  laws  of  purity,  of  clean  and  un- 
clean food,  of  leprosy,  of  consanguinity,  &c.  Even  if  it 
were  granted  that  some  final  codification  or  resetting  of 
these  laws  was  accomplished  by  Ezra,  it  would  not 
militate  one  whit  against  their  antiquity  and  substan- 
tially Mosaic  character. 

The  post-exilian  period  is  chiefly  interesting  because  of 
the  determined  efforts  of  the  critics  to  carry  down  into  it 

THE   PSALMS 

and  a  considerable  part  of  the  other  literature  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  attempt  is  favoured  by  our  almost 
absolute  ignorance  of  the  actual  history  and  religious  con- 
ditions of  the  period  in  question.  There  is  here  a  vacuum 
which  can  be  filled  up  at  pleasure.  But  assertion  is  not 
proof,  and  when  we  ask,  for  instance,  for  evidence  that 
the  bulk,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  Psalter  is  post-exilian 
in  origin,  and  especially  that  none  of  it  can  go  back  to 
David,  we  are  surprised  to  find  how  largely  theory  and 
unwarrantable  speculation  take  the  place  of  proof.  We 
are  told,  so  far  rightly,  that  the  titles  of  the 
psalms  are  not  to  be  depended  on  ;  that  David — i.e.,  the 
reconstructed  David  of  the  critics — could  not  have  written 
psalms  ;  that  the  religious  ideas  of  the  psalms  are  far 
beyond  David's  age,  &c.  The  theory  of  religion  above 
criticised  is,  in  fact,  brought  in  to  determine  what  could, 
or  could  not,  be.  It  used  to  be  held  as  beyond  question 
that  at  least  the  18th  Psalm  belonged  to  David.  But 
even  this  psalm  would  prove  too  much,  and  must  go  the 
way  of  the  rest. 

Yet  it  seems  to  me  nearly  as  certain  as  anything  can  be 
that  a  collection  of  psalms,  called  from  its  major  part 
"The  Psalms  of  David  "  (as  other  collections  were  called 
later,  "  Of  the  Sons  of  Korah,"  &c),  was  in  existence 
before  the   exile ;    and  the  uniform  tradition,  ascribing 

117 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

psalms  to  David,  is  not  a  fact  to  be  easily  got  over. 
Certain  groups  of  psalms — those,  e.g.,  making  mention  of 
"the  King" — cannot,  without  extreme  forcing,  be 
regarded  as  other  than  pre-exilian  (Ps.  ii.,  xviii.,  xx., 
xxi.,  &c).  We  have  express  reference  to  the  praises  of 
the  first  temple — "  Our  holy  and  beautiful  house  where 
our  fathers  praised  Thee"  (Is.  Ixiv.  n), — and  the 
captives  in  Zion  were  tauntingly  asked  by  their  enemies 
to  sing  to  them  "the  songs  of  Zion  "  (Ps.  cxxxvii.  3,  4). 
11  Singers  "  were  a  prominent  feature  in  the  organisation 
of  the  temple  at  the  return  (Ezra  ii.  41,  65  ;  vii.  7,  24, 
&c.) ;  and  this  organisation  of  sanctuary  worship  is  con- 
nected again  in  Chronicles  with  David  (1  Chron.  xxiii. 
5  ;  xxv.  5,  &c).  There  are  even  passages  which  look 
like  quotations  of  earlier  and  later  psalms,  as  of  Ps.  i.  in 
Jer.  xvii.  8  (Cf.  Ez.  xlvii.  12),  and  the  formula  of  thanks- 
giving in  Jer.  xxxiii.  n  :  "  Give  thanks  to  Jehovah  of 
hosts,  for  Jehovah  is  good :  for  his  mercy  endureth  for 
ever"  (found  only  in  Books  iv.  and  v.  of  the  Psalter). 
Few  of  the  psalms  show  any  trace  of  the  Levitical 
influences  which  the  critics  make  dominant  after  the 
exile. 

We  may,  I  think,  on  a  survey  of  the  whole,  keep  our 
minds  at  ease  as  to  the  effect  upon  our  Bible  of  this 
modern  critical  theory  of  Israel's  religion. 


118 


VI 

Archaeology  as  Searchlight 


Archaeology  as 
Searchlight 


SIXTY  years  ago  comparatively  few  materials  existed, 
outside  the  Bible  itself,  for  testing  the  correctness  of 
the  statements  of  that  book  regarding  the  peoples, 
countries,  and  civilisations,  with  which  its  pages,  in  so 
many  different  ways,  bring  us  into  contact.  What 
information  about  ancient  countries  was  derived  from 
outside  sources — as,  e.g.,  from  the  Greek  historian 
Herodotus — was  late,  confused,  contradictory,  and  in  many 
respects  untrustworthy.  It  nearly  as  often  contradicted 
the  Bible  as  confirmed  it,  and,  of  course,  was  freely  used  by 
unbelievers  to  discredit  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  By  a 
singular  providence  of  God,  the  state  of  things  is  very 
different  now.  Sixty  years  ago  we  were  in  the  dark  ;  now 
we  are  comparatively  in 

A   BLAZE   OF   LIGHT. 

As  if  by  magic,  Egypt,  Babylonia,  Assyria,  other  ancient 
lands,  have  yielded  up  their  secrets  ;  their  graves  have 
opened,  and  from  their  buried  palaces,  their  monuments, 
their  long-lost  libraries,  a  voice  has  gone  up  rebuking  the 
scorner,  and  bearing  a  testimony,  as  emphatic  as  it  was 
unlooked  for,  to  the  credibility  of  Holy  Writ. 

It  is  a  very  severe  test  to  which  the  Bible  is  exposed  by 

121 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

these  discoveries  of  modern  archaeology.  From  the 
character  of  its  history — going  back  as  it  does  to  primitive 
times,  and  touching  in  succession  all  the  great  Empires 
and  phases  of  civilisation  in  the  East — not  only  introduc- 
ing us  to,  but  minutely  interlacing  its  narratives  with, 
details  of  events  and  personages  of  such  countries  as 
Egypt,  Assyria,  Babylonia,  Mesopotamia,  as  well  as  of 
lesser  kingdoms  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
Palestine — doing  this  at  different  periods,  while  the  his- 
torical relations  of  these  countries  were  themselves  con- 
stantly changing — the  Bible  abounds  in  a  mass  of  his- 
torical, geographical,  and  political  references,  which  lay 
it  open,  perhaps  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  other  book 
that  ever  was  written,  to  be  confirmed  or  refuted  by 
information  drawn  from  external  sources. 

What  makes  the  test  more  searching  is  the  rapid  way 
in  which  the  memory  of  even  the  greater  events  in  history 
tends  to 

SINK   INTO   OBLIVION. 

It  is,  indeed,  surprising  how  early  the  knowledge  of 
vast  cities,  now  again  made  familiar  to  us  by  the  spade  of 
the  explorer,  had  faded  from  the  minds  of  men.  Nineveh 
fell  in  606  B.C.  under  the  combined  attacks  of  Medes  and 
Babylonians.  Yet  three  centuries  later,  so  completely 
had  the  traces  of  the  city  vanished,  that  Alexander  the 
Great  led  his  troops  past  the  spot,  as  Xenophon  had  done 
before  him,  apparently  without  suspicion  of  its  existence. 
The  deserted  mounds  remained  undisturbed  till  the  middle 
of  last  century,  when  Botta,  Layard,  George  Smith,  and 
other  excavators,  laid  their  treasures  bare.  Research 
has  unceasingly  proceeded  since,  and  it  is  with  the 
results  of  these  investigations  that  the  Bible  is  put 
in  comparison.  What  other  book  could  stand  so  trying 
an  ordeal  ? 

122 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 
I. 

I  shall  not  attempt  in  this  brief  paper  to  sketch  the 
history  of  modern  exploration,*  but  shall  confine  myself 
to  the 

LARGER  ASPECTS 

of  the  subject,  in  which,  it  may  be  felt,  the  confirmation 
of  the  statements  of  the  Bible  is  most  effectively  ex- 
hibited. 

Let  us  look,  first,  at  the  groupings,  on  the  large  scale, 
of  the 

PEOPLES   AND   COUNTRIES 

of  those  ancient  times,  as  these  are  revealed  to  us  by 
exploration  and  the  Bible.  Here  the  corroborations  are 
extremely  striking.  The  Bible,  for  instance,  pictures  all 
the  streams  in  the  distribution  of  mankind  after  the 
flood  as  proceeding  from  Babylonia  as  a  centre  (Gen. 
xi.).  Discovery  shows  that  probably  all  the  great 
civilisations — Assyrian,  Egyptian,  Canaanitish,  even 
Chinese — took  their  origin  from  this  quarter.  It  goes 
further,  and  throws  a  flood  of  light  on  the  ancient 
civilisations  themselves.  The  old  idea,  derived  from 
classical  writers,  was  that  Nineveh  was  older  than 
Babylon,  that  Babylonian  civilisation  was  derived  from 
Assyria,  and  that  both  Babylonians  and  Assyrians  were 
Semites.  Now,  it  is  ascertained,  as  the  Bible  tells  us  in 
Gen.  x.  8,  that  civilisation  in  Babylonia  goes  far  back 
beyond  every  other,  that  Assyria  was  colonised  from 
Babylonia,  and  that  the  founders  of  Babylonian  culture — 
of  its  letters,  laws,  institutions — were  not  Semitic,  but  a 
people  of  different,  as  we  say,  Hamitic  stock.  The  very 
names  of  the  cities  in  Gen.  x.  10 — Erech,  Accad,  Calneh 

*A  sketch  of  the  leading  facts  may  be  seen  in  Chapter  XI.  of  my 
Problem  of  the  Old  Testament. 

123 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

(Nippur),    &c. — carry    us   back    into    the   midst   of    the 
Babylonia  unearthed  by  exploration. 
As  specific  examples,  I  may  take  first  the  case  of 

ELAM. 

The  Elam  known  to  history  is  an  Aryan,  not  a  Semitic 
people,  while  Gen.  x.  22  describes  Elam  as  the  eldest 
son  of  Shem.  Here,  apparently,  was  a  mistake.  But 
the  French  explorers,  in  their  excavations  at  Susa,  came 
the  other  year  on  an  older  stratum  of  civilisation,  which 
proved  to  be  Semitic.  Dr.  Peters,  in  a  recent  article,  * 
sums  up  the  results  thus :  "  The  French  excavations 
both  justify  and  explain  the  name.  As  soon  as  the 
Semites  had  established  themselves  thoroughly  in 
Babylonia,  they  spread  out  into  the  neighbouring  plain 
of  Elam,  and  from  the  time  of  the  Sargonids,  with,  or 
a  little  before,  when  the  Semitic  primacy  was  established, 
Elam  constituted  a  part  of  what  one  may  call  the 
Babylonian  Semitic  Empire.  Next  these  Babylonian 
Semites  moved  northward,  and  took  or  built  Asshur,  that 
is,  Assyria,  which  is  in  the  same  list  called  in  conse- 
quence the  second  son  of  Shem." 

Another  well-known  case,  hardly  needing  to  be  dwelt 
on,  is  that  of 

THE   HITTITES. 

This  great  people,  described  as  stretching  "  from  the 
wilderness,  and  this  Lebanon,  even  unto  the  great  river, 
the  river  Euphrates  "  (Josh.  i.  4),  is  frequently  referred 
to  in  Scripture  (e.g.,  Judg.  i.  26  ;  1  Kings  x.  28,  29  ;  2 
Kings  vii,  6).  Yet  history,  outside  the  Bible,  knew 
nothing  of  them,  and  their  existence  was  scouted  as 
mythical.     Now,  discovery  has  restored  them   to   view, 

•Art.  on  "  The  Eldest  Son  of  Shem,"  in   The  Homiletic  Review, 
October,  1906. 

124 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

shown  them  to  be  a  power  hardly  less  great  than  Egypt 
and  Assyria  themselves,  and  made  known  to  us  their 
peculiar  hieroglyphics,  which  scholars  are  yet  vainly 
trying  to  decipher. 

Is  it  by  coincidence,  I  ask,  that  this  wonderful  know- 
ledge of  peoples  and  their  relations,  stretching  back,  in 
some  cases,  millenniums  before  Abraham,  is  preserved  in 
Genesis,  the  oldest  parts  of  which  the  critics  suppose  to 
have  taken  shape  in  the  ninth  or  eighth  century  ?  Must 
not  older,  authentic  records  be  assumed  ? 

I  look  next  at  the  nature  of 

THE    OLD    TRADITIONS 

of  these  ancient  peoples,  as  now  made  known  to  us  by 
oriental  discovery.  If  there  is  any  place  where  one 
might  look  with  hope  for  the  most  ancient  traditions  of 
the  world,  it  is  in  Babylonia.  In  Babylonia  the  Bible 
locates  the  creation  of  man,  the  garden  in  which  he  was 
placed,  the  building  of  the  ark,  the  new  distribution  of  the 
race,  &c. 

Where,  then,  should  the  traditions  of  the  oldest 
things  linger,  if  not  in  this  region  ?  Now,  however, 
as  everyone  knows,  the  traditions  of  these  ancient 
peoples  recovered  from  their  own  monuments,  on  such 
subjects  as  the  Creation,  possibly  the  Temptation  (the 
interpretation  is  disputed),  the  Sabbath,*  the  Flood,  &c, 
are  in  our  possession,  and,  though  debased  by  polytheism, 
and  lacking  the  high  spiritual  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament, 
their  singular  resemblance  to  the  Biblical  accounts  is 
universally  admitted.  A  few  lines  from  the  Flood  story 
will  illustrate  : — 

•It  is  a  disputed  question  whether  the  Babylonian  Sabbath  was  a 
day  of  general  rest.  Winckler  favours  the  view  that  the  original  idea 
included  rest. 

125 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

"  On  the  mountain  of  Nizir  the  ship  grounded  : 

One  day  and  a  second  day  did  the  mountain  of  Nizir  hold  it. 

A  third  day  and  a  fourth  day  did  the  mountain  of  Nizir  hold  it. 

A  fifth  day  and  a  sixth  day  did  the  mountain  of  Nizir  hold  it. 

When  the  seventh  day  came  I  sent  forth  a  dove,  and  let  it  go. 

The  dove  went  and  returned  ;  a  resting-place  it  found  not,  and  it 
turned  back. 

I  sent  forth  a  swallow  and  let  it  go  :  the  swallow  went  and  re- 
turned ; 

A  resting-place  it  found  not,  and  it  turned  back. 

I  sent  forth  a  raven  and  let  it  go. 

The  raven  went  and  saw  the  going  down  of  the  waters,  and 

It  approached,  it  waded,  it  croaked,  and  did  not  turn  back." 

Here  the  chief  differences  are  a  "  ship  "  for  an  "  ark,"  and 
the  interpolation  of  "  the  swallow." 

The  easy  explanation  which  most  critics  adopted  of 
these  resemblances  was  that  the  Jews  had  borrowed  their 
legends  from  the  Babylonians.  The  Wellhausen  School 
usually  put  the  borrowing  late  in  the  history  of  Israel, 
much  of  it  in  the  Exile  ;  the  favourite  view  at  present  is 
that  the  Israelites  came  into  possession  of  the  legends 
through  the  Canaanites,  who  are  known  to  have  been 
deeply  penetrated  from  a  very  early  period  by  Baby- 
lonian influences.  But  there  is  a  prior  question  about 
these  "  legends  " — 

WERE   THEY   BORROWED   AT   ALL  ? 

Abraham  came  indeed  from  Babylonia,  and  might  have 
brought  these  stories  with  him.  If  he  did,  it  must  have 
been  (on  the  theory)  in  their  crude,  polytheistic  form. 
But  is  this  likely  ?  Critics  forget,  when  they  speak  of 
the  Spirit  of  revelation  using  these  legends  as  a  vehicle 
for  the  conveyance  of  great  religious  ideas,  that  before 
they  could  be  "purified"  and  "used,"  they  must  have 
been  appropriated.  But  is  it  credible  that  legends  so 
polytheistic  and  grotesque  would  at  any  time  be  borrowed 

126 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 


by  the  Israelites?  or  that  the  work  of  "purifying  "  them 
— a  huge  and  formidable  task — was  one  that  would 
commend  itself  to  really  pious  minds  ?  The  character 
of  the  Biblical  accounts  speaks  against  this  theory  of 
their  origin.  They  can  most  safely  be  regarded  as  an 
independent  and  purer  branch  of  the  old,  religious 
tradition,  cognate  with  the  Babylonian,  but  not  immedi- 
ately derived  from  it.* 

II. 

Another  very  important  aid  derived  from  archaeology  is 
the  abundant  light  cast  by  discovery  on  the  early  and 
familiar 

USE   OF   WRITING. 

The  service  of  discovery  here  can  hardly  be  over-estimated. 
The  Bible  makes  us  familiar  with  writing  from  the  time 
of  the  Exodus.  It  suits  critics  now  to  make  light  of  the 
objection  that  writing  was  not  known  in  the  age  of 
Moses ;  but  this  was  formerly  an  objection  very  often 
urged,  and  defenders  of  the  Bible  (like  Hengstenberg)  had 
to  meet  it  as  best  they  could  by  appeal  to  the  hiero- 
glyphics of  Egypt,  and  to  stray  indications  elsewhere. 
Now,  no  one  doubts  that,  for  a  very  long  period  before 
Moses,  and  in  his  own  time,  the  civilised  world  was  full 
of  writing — of  letters,  books,  and  libraries.  Writing, 
schools,  go  back  in  Babylonia  to  an  almost  fabulous 
antiquity.  Egypt  is  not  far  behind.  The  hieroglyphic 
character  is  older  than  the  first  dynasty :  a  book  of 
moral  wisdom,  much  like  our  own  "  Proverbs,"  comes 
down  to  us  from  the  5th  dynasty.  The  discovery  of 
the  official  correspondence  of  Kings  of  Egypt  of  the 
18th  dynasty  (c,  1400  B.C.)  at  Tel-el-Amarna  shows 
*See  this  view  explained  and  defended  in  Kittel's  The  Babylonian 
Excavations  and  Early  Bible  History  (E.  T.),  with  Preface  by  Dr, 
Wade(S.P.C.K.). 

127 


J& 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

that  Canaan  was  at  the  time  saturated  with  Baby- 
lonian culture.  Cuneiform  Babylonian  was,  in  fact 
the  recognised  official  language  everywhere.  The 
still  later  discovery  of  the  great  law-code  of  Ham- 
murabi (the  Amraphel  of  Gen.  xiv.)  proves  that  in 
Abraham's  age  whole  codes  of  laws  were  engraved 
on  monuments  for  public  use.  Other  peoples  (the 
Hittites,  Cretans,  &c),  had  their  own  systems  of  writing. 
It  was  still  possible  to  urge  that,  while  Egypt  and 
Bab)  Ionia  had  their  own  forms  of  writing  (hieroglyphic, 
cuneiform),  there  was  no  evidence  of  the  early  use  of  a 
kind  of  writing  approaching  that  met  with  in  the  Bible. 
Even  this  last  form  of  the  objection  seems  destroyed  by 
a  discovery  newly  made  at  Sinai  by  Professor  Flinders 
Petrie.  In  his  book,  Researches  in  Sinai,  Professor  Petrie 
tells  how,  in  the  course  of  the  explorations  at  Serabit, 
specimens  were  found  of  a 

NEW   KIND   OF   WRITING, 

several  centuries  older  than  the  Exodus.  "  The  ulterior 
conclusion,"  he  says,  "  is  very  important — namely,  that 
common  Syrian  workmen,  who  could  not  command  the 
skill  of  an  Egyptian  sculptor,  were  familiar  with  writing 
at  1500  B.C.,  and  this,  a  writing  independent  of  hiero- 
glyphics and  cuneiform.  It  finally  disposes  of  the 
hypothesis  that  the  Israelites,  who  came  through  this 
region  into  Egypt  and  passed  back  again,  could  not  have 
used  writing.  Here  we  have  common  Syrian  labourers 
possessing  a  script  which  other  Semitic  peoples  of  this 
region  must  be  credited  with  knowing  "  (p.  132). 

Professor  Petrie  blends  with  his  interesting  facts  a 
number  of  speculations  which  it  is  more  difficult  to  accept. 
Thus  he  seeks  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  of  the  numbers 
of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert  by  the  supposition  (based 
on  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  words  for  "  thousand  "  and 

128 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

"  family "  are  the  same),  that  in  the  census  list  in 
Numbers  the  numbers  given  are  not  really  hundreds  of 
thousands,  but  hundreds  of  "  families."  The  total  is 
thus  reduced  to  about  5,000,  which  is  all  he  thinks  the 
desert  could  support  (this  difficulty  is  touched  on  below). 
It  is  perfectly  obvious,  however,  that  a  host  of  this  size 
— say  2,000  fighting  men — did  not  conquer  Canaan  !  On 
the  other  hand,  Professor  Petrie  takes  up  the  defence  of 
the  large  numbers  in  the  later  historical  books,  which 
have  stumbled  so  many  (Cf.  pp.  218-220). 

III. 

This  is,  perhaps,  the  place  to  refer  to  another  important 
service  which  archaeology  has  rendered,  viz.,  in  placing  a 
check  on  the  too  easy  practice  of 

RESOLVING   HISTORICAL   FACTS   INTO   MYTHS. 

Few  things  are  more  remarkable  in  the  later  progress  of 
discovery  than  the  way  in  which  historical  persons  and 
events,  till  lately  relegated  to  the  realm  of  myth,  have 
had  their  rights  restored  to  them  as  indubitably  real 
The  two  first  dynasties  of  Egypt  were  generally  supposed 
to  be  mythical.  Menes,  the  founder  of  the  first  dynasty, 
was  quite  surely  so  regarded,  and  writers  like  Maspero 
wrote  learnedly  to  show  how  the  myth  originated  !  Now 
the  tombs  of  these  kings  have  been  discovered,  and  the 
dynasties  are  restored  to  their  real  place  in  history.  It 
has  been  the  same  elsewhere.  "  The  spade  of  Dr. 
Schliemann  and  his  followers  has  again  brought  to  light 
the  buried  Empire  of  Agamemnon."  (Sayce).  King 
Minos  of  Crete  was  universally  regarded  as  a  myth. 
Now,  as  the  result  of  the  excavations  of  Dr.  Evans,  his 
palace  has  been  disinterred,  and  travellers  boast  of  having 
sat  in  his  throne.      Assyrian  inscriptions  have  established 

129  K 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

the  historical  existence  of  King  Midas,  of  Phrygia  (8th 
century  B.C.),  still  described  in  text-books  as  an  ancient 
divinity  of  the  Northern  Greeks  and  Phrygians,  "  A 
blessing-scattering  nature-god  !  "  Possibly  some  surprises 
are  yet  in  store  for  those  to  whom  the  patriarchs — 
Abraham,  Joseph,  Jacob,  &c. — are  only  products  of  the 
myth-forming  fancy. 

Even  as  it  is,  I  would  observe  next,  not  a  little  illustra- 
tive and  confirmatory  light  has  been  cast  by  exploration 
on  the  historical  relations  and  conditions  of  life  of 

THE   PATRIARCHAL  AGE. 

I  have  mentioned  already  the  remarkable  code  of  the 
great  ruler  Hammurabi,  which  presents  interesting 
analogies  to  the  laws  of  Moses,  and  has  also  curious 
points  of  relation  with  patriarchal  customs  in  the  Book 
of  Genesis.  For  instance,  the  law  takes  account  of  pre- 
cisely such  relations  as  existed  in  Abraham's  household 
between  Sarah  and  Hagar,  and  directs  what  should  be 
done  should  the  woman  afterwards  have  a  dispute  with 
her  mistress  because  she  has  borne  children  (Arts.  145 
146,  &c).  Here  is  a  touch  of  verisimilitude  such  as  after 
invention  could  not  have  supplied. 

In  the  historical  sphere,  the  most  crucial  example  is 
that  of 

CHEDORLAOMER. 

The  story  of  Chedorlaomer's  expedition  into  Palestine 
in  Gen.  xiv.  takes  us  back  at  least  till  about  2100  B.C. ; 
it  moves  in  strange  surroundings,  and  relates  unusual 
events ;  it  gives  the  names  of  a  number  of  kings,  other- 
wise unknown  to  history;  these  stand  in  intricate 
relations  to  one  another.  It  assumes  that  Babylonia 
was  at  this  time  under  the  suzerainty  of  a  king  of  Elam. 
Who,  writing   at  a  later  time,  could  possibly   pick  his 

130 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

steps  in  such  a  story  without  falling  into  error  ?  Yet 
what  does  discovery  establish  ?  That  precisely  as  the 
chapter  relates,  Babylonia  was  at  this  time  under  the 
rule  of  an  Elamitic  dynasty ;  that  a  common,  if  not 
universal,  prefix  in  the  names  of  these  rulers  was 
"Kudur"  (servant);  that  their  power  extended  over 
Palestine ;  that  the  name  "  Chedorlaomer  " — Kudur- 
lagamar  (servant  of  Lagamar) — is  a  genuine  Elamitic 
compound ;  that  contemporary  kings  were  Eriaku  of 
Larsa  (Arioch),  Amraphel  (Hammurabi),  Tudgulu. 
Certain  archaeologists  (Sayce,  Hommel,  Pinches)  even 
claim  that  the  name  Chedorlaomer  itself  has  been  de- 
ciphered. Here  is  a  clear  corroboration  of  the  framework 
of  the  story.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  such  facts 
should  come  to  be  known  unless  old  and  practically 
contemporary  records  were  available. 
In  such  a  detailed  history  as  that  of 

JOSEPH 

we  have  another  form  of  corroboration  hardly  less  re- 
markable. The  scene  of  the  greater  part  of  Joseph's  life 
is  laid  in  Egypt.  It  is  always  difficult  to  describe  with 
accuracy  the  conditions  of  life,  customs,  domestic  and 
social  arrangements,  political  circumstances,  of  a  foreign 
country ;  to  picture  its  life  in  public  and  private,  in 
courts  and  in  humbler  ranks,  in  slave-market,  prison, 
and  household,  with  ease,  naturalness,  and  fidelity  of 
colouring.  Yet  this  is  what  has  been  accomplished  in 
the  history  of  Joseph.  Egyptian  life,  manners,  customs, 
relations  of  men  and  women,  masters  and  servants,  King 
and  subjects,  are,  by  general  consent,  pictured  to  perfec- 
tion. Especially  in  those  features  of  the  description  to 
which  exception  at  an  earlier  stage  was  taken,  as,  e.g., 
the  use  of  flesh  meat  at  feasts,  the  free  manners  of  the 
women,   the   use    of    wine,   &c,   the    monuments   have 

131 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

abundantly  vindicated  the  picture  given.  The  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  Egyptian  colouring  in  the  narratives 
of  the  Exodus,  so  vivid  and  fresco-like,  yet  so  true  to 
reality  !  How  is  this  careful  accuracy  of  the  narratives  to 
be  explained,  except  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  story  was 
early  reduced  to  writing  by  one  familiar  with  the  country 
and  the  events  of  which  he  writes  ? 

IV. 

This  brings  me  next  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  illustra- 
tion which  exploration  has  afforded  of 

THE   MOSAIC   PERIOD. 

One  remarkable  discovery  which  cannot  be  overlooked 
was  the  finding  of  the  actual  mummies  of  all  the  great 
Pharaohs  of  the  18th  and  19th  dynasties.  As  it  is 
certain  that  it  was  under  one  or  other  of  these  dynasties 
that  the  oppression  of  Israel  and  the  Exodus  took  place, 
we  can  feel  sure  that  the  mummy  of  the  veritable 
Pharaoh,  on  whose  face  Moses  looked — the  Pharaoh 
under  whose  oppression  Israel  groaned — is  now  in  our 
possession.  But  who  was  it  ?  The  usual  theory  is  that 
the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression  was  the  great  ruler 
Rameses  II.,  and  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus  probably 
his  son  Meneptah.  There  is  much  in  itself  to  be  said  for 
this  identification.  The  conditions  in  many  ways  suit, 
and  corroboration  is  found  in  the  two  cities  Rameses  and 
Pithom,  which  Pharaoh  is  said  to  have  caused  the 
Israelites  to  build  (Ex.  i.  11).  Rameses  is  apparently 
the  name  of  the  king,  and  discovery  shows  that 
Rameses  II.  was  connected  with  the  building  or  re- 
building of  both  cities. 

The  matter,  however,  has  been  complicated  by  the  more 
recent  discovery  of  a  monument  of  Meneptah,  on  which 

132 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

THE    NAME    OF    "  ISRAEL  " 

is  for  the  first  time  distinctly  found.  On  this  stela 
Meneptah  boastfully  records  his  victories  over  several 
peoples  in  and  about  Palestine,  and  apparently  includes 
Israel  among  these.  "  Israel  is  spoiled,"  it  reads,  "  it 
hath  no  seed."  On  the  assumption  that  Meneptah  is  the 
Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  this  must  be  understood  to  mean 
that  Israel,  lost  to  view  in  the  wanderings  of  the  desert, 
was  regarded  as  cut  off,  destroyed,  so  that  no  successors 
were  left.  But  the  more  natural  view  is,  that  Israel,  in 
Meneptah's  reign,  was  already  in  Palestine.  In  this 
case,  of  course,  Meneptah  could  not  be  the  Pharaoh  of 
the  Exodus. 

There  is,  however,  another  fact  that  speaks    strongly 
against  this  identification,  viz., 

THE    CHRONOLOGY. 

It  is  certain,  in  view  of  the  Chedorlaomer  synchronism, 
that  Abraham's  date  cannot  be  put  later  than  about 
a ioo  B.C. ;  this  leaves  fully  S50  years  between  Abraham 
and  the  Exodus  under  Meneptah  (after  1250  B.C.),  which 
is  a  couple  of  centuries  more  than  the  Biblical  data  will 
allow.  On  the  other  side,  the  period  between  the 
Exodus  and  the  Founding  of  the  Temple  (c.  975  B.C.)  is 
much  too  short  (Cf.  1  Kings  vi.  1).  We  seem  driven  by 
superior  probability,  therefore,  to  put  back  the  Exodus 
into  the  previous  iSth  dynasty,  where  the  dates  abso- 
lutely suit  (c.  1450),  where  also  the  conditions  are  equally 
favourable,  if  not  more  so.  The  oppressor,  on  this  view, 
which  many  now  adopt,  will  be  the  great  monarch 
Thothmes  III.,  and  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus  will  be 
one  of  his  immediate  successors,  Amenophis  II.  or 
Thothmes  IV.  The  "  store-cities,"  in  this  case,  were 
built  under  Thothmes,  and  perhaps  re-built  or  enlarged 

133 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Jameses.*  Fifty  or  sixty  years  later  we  have  the 
great  irruption  of  the  "  Chabiri "  into  Palestine,  described 
in  the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters.  Many  scholars  who  adopt 
the  earlier  date  are  disposed  to  identify  this  irruption 
with  the  Hebrew  invasion. 

As  was  naturally  to  be  expected,  much  attention  has 
been  bestowed  by  explorers  on 

THE    ROUTE   OF  THE   EXODUS, 

and  on  the  topography  of  the  desert  in  which  Israel  so 
long  wandered.  It  is  the  barest  truth  to  say  that  the 
remarkable  accuracy  of  the  Biblical  accounts  on  these 
matters  has  been  endorsed  by  every  investigator  of 
importance.  Most  of  the  spots  in  the  route  have  been 
identified ;  the  descriptions  of  the  utter  barrenness  and 
desolation  of  the  desert  are  confirmed  to  the  letter  (Cf. 
Palmer,  Brugsch,  Petrie,  &c).  The  difficulty  that  arises 
is  as  to  the  means  of  obtaining  sustenance  in  such  a 
place  for  so  large  a  host  as  the  Israelites  are  represented 
to  have  been.  Professor  Petrie,  as  noted  above,  will 
have  it  that  the  desert  was  as  infertile  then  as  it  is 
to-day,  and  could  not  support  more  than  some  5,000 
souls.  Others,  as  Palmer,  believe  that  in  many  parts 
vegetation  and  wood  were  originally  much  more 
abundant.  In  any  case,  the  reader  of  the  Bible  recalls 
that  the  narrative  itself  emphasises  the  frequent  dire 
straits  of  the  people  in  their  journeyings  from  want  of 
water,  famine,  absence  of  flesh  food  and  vegetables,  &c, 
and  makes  this  the  very  ground  of  a  series  of  Divine 
interpositions,  which  relieved  their  immediate  needs,  and 
provided  them,  in  the  manna,  with  a  daily  sustenance. 
The  one  thing  we  can  be  sure  of  is,  that  God  did  not 
bring  His  people  into  the  desert  without  securing  that 

*  Rameses  II.  was  in  the  habit  of  appropriating  the  works  of  his 
predecessors,  and  giving  his  name  to  them. 

134 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

they  would  be  provided  with  what  things  were  necessary 

for  their  subsistence. 


When  we  come  down  to  the  period  of  the  Kings,  the 
notices  on  the  monuments  of  the  relations  between  Israel 
and  surrounding  peoples  become  more  numerous,  and  often 
read  like  extracts  from  the  Bible  pages  themselves.    The 

NAMES   AND   DOINGS  OF  THE  KINGS, 

and  events  narrated  in  Scripture,  like  Shishak's  invasion, 
Mesha's  rebellion,  the  fall  of  Samaria,  and  captivity  of 
Israel,  Sennacherib's  invasion,  are  inscribed  in  the  con- 
temporary records  of  the  peoples  or  rulers  concerned. 
Sometimes  additional  information  is  imparted.  We  learn 
that  Shishak's  invasion  extended  to  the  cities  of  Israel 
and  Judab  (Cf.  2  Chron.  xii.  3,  4,  which  enlarges  the 
account  of  1  Kings  xiii.  25,  26) ;  that  Jehu  paid  tribute  to 
Shalmaneser  II.,  king  of  Assyria :  that  Ahab  fought,  as 
an  ally  of  Ben-hadad,  at  the  battle  of  Karkar,  in  the  end 
of  his  life  (Cf.  1  Kings  xx.  34 ;  xxii.  1)  ;  that  Sargon  was 
the  conqueror  of  Samaria,  &c 

One  special  service  which  Assyrian  discovery  has  done 
is  in 

RECTIFYING   THE   CHRONOLOGY 

of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  as  given  in  the  margins 
of  our  Bible.  The  Assyrians  had  a  very  exact  system  of 
reckoning,  based  zz  the  sucice;::-  ;:  yearly  :z::r:~.  and 
their  lists  (the  so-called  Eponym  Canon)  are  confirmed 
by  independent  monuments,  eclipses,  &c  The  points 
of  contact  with  the  Biblical  history  are  not  few,  and 
reveal  a  growing  discrepancy  upwards  from  the  fall  of 
Samaria,  722  B.C.,  where  the  dates  coincide,  till  in  the 

135 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

reign  of  Ahab  it  amounts  to  over  40  years,  after  which  it 
does  not  increase  much.  E.g.,  the  usual  date  for  Ahab's 
death  is  898  B.C.,  whereas  the  inscriptions  show  him 
present,  probably  in  his  last  year,  at  the  battle  of  Karkar 
in  854  B.C.  The  founding  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon, 
placed  about  1012  B.C.,  has  to  be  correspondingly 
lowered. 

How  is  this  to  be  explained  ?  An  examination  of  the 
Biblical  numbers  themselves  suggests  the  reasons  of  the 
discrepancy.  In  summing  up  the  total  years  of  the  reigns 
of  the  kings  of  Judah,  on  the  one  side,  and  those  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  on  the  other,  till  the  fall  of  Samaria,  we 
find  that  the  Judaean  line  is  some  twenty  years  longer 
than  the  northern  one.  To  harmonise  this  difference,  the 
ordinary  chronology  inserts  two  interregnums  (one  of 
eleven  years  after  the  death  of  Jeroboam  II.,  and  one  of 
nine  years  after  the  death  of  Pekah),  of  which  the 
Biblical  history  affords  no  hints.  It  is  now  generally 
allowed  that  the  real  explanation  of  this  inequality  lies  in 

"associations" 

of  certain  of  the  kings,  as  of  Jotham  with  his  father, 
Uzziah  (Cf.  2.  Chron.  xxvi.  21),  and  possibly  of  Uzziah 
(Azariah)  himself,  with  his  own  father  Amaziah  (Cf. 
2  Kings  xiv.  22).*  Another  part  of  the  explanation  of 
the  divergence  no  doubt  is  the  practice  of  reckoning  the 
king's  reigns  in  round  numbers  of  years,  including  those 
in  which  the  reign  began  and  ended.  The  effect  of  this 
would  be  that,  with  every  change  on  the  throne,  the  year 
of  change  would  be  reckoned  twice.     These  two  causes 

*  This,  admittedly,  creates  a  difficulty  in  relation  to  certain  of  the 
cross  references  in  the  Bible  text,  which  seem  to  go  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  reigns  were  wholly  separate.  In  part  this  may  be  only 
seeming,  and  some  of  the  references  may  embody  data  which  our 
imperfect  knowledge  prevents  us  from  fully  harmonising  with  other 
statements.    The  cross  references  are  due  to  the  compiler. 

136 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

explain  nearly  the  whole  discrepancy,  but  one  must  reckon 
also  with  occasional  possible  corruptions  of  numbers, 
which  in  some  cases,  as  in  the  "  twenty  years"  of  Pekah, 
are  shown  by  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  to  have  taken 
place. 

A  striking  example  of  how  discovery  throws  light  on 
dark  places  of  Scripture,  and  furnishes  corroboration  of 
disputed  statements,  is  seen  in  the  case  of 

SARGON, 

the  conqueror  of  Samaria.  In  Is.  xx.  I  we  read  that 
Sargon,  the  king  of  Assyria,  sent  his  Tartan  unto 
Ashdod,  who  fought  against  Ashdod,  and  took  it.  But 
Sargon  was  a  King  totally  unknown  to  history.  No 
ancient  writer  mentions  him.  "Tartan"  was  equally  a 
strange  term.  Sargon,  accordingly,  was  voted  by  many 
a  "  myth."  Various  expedients  were  resorted  to  by 
others  to  solve  the  difficulty  (identification  with  Shal- 
maneser  IV.,  &c).  By  a  curious  coincidence,  the  very 
first  discovery  made  in  Assyrian  exploration  (by  Botta,  in 
1843)  was  that  of  the  ruins  of  the  great  palace  of  this 
very  Sargon.  Hilprecht,  the  distinguished  explorer,  has 
said  :  "  There  never  has  been  roused  again  such  a  deep 
and  general  interest  in  the  excavation  of  distant  Oriental 
sites  as  towards  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  when 
Sargon's  palace  rose  suddenly  out  of  the  ground,  and 
furnished  the  first  faithful  picture  of  a  great  epoch  of  art, 
which  has  vanished  completely  from  human  sight."* 
Sargon  is  now  one  of  the  best-known  of  the  later 
Assyrian  kings.  His  name,  portrait,  sculptures,  annals, 
including  this  siege  of  Ashdod,  were  found  in  his  palace. 
He  was  the  father  of  Sennacherib,  and  the  final  conqueror 
of  Samaria,  completing  the  work  Shalmaneserhad  begun, 
and  carrying  the  people  captive  into  Assyria.!     Tartan  is 

*  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands,  p.  87    tBut  see  p.    264. 

137 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

the  official  name  for  the  Assyrian  Commander-in-Chief  of 
the  Army. 

Another  instance  of  the  confirmations  of  the  Bible 
furnished  by  the  monuments  may  be  taken  from 

THE    PROPHECIES   OF  JEREMIAH. 

Jeremiah's  lot  was  a  hard  one  after  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldseans,  in  fulfilment  of  his  own 
constantly-repeated  predictions.  He  voluntarily  cast  in 
his  lot  with  the  remnant  of  the  people  in  the  land,  but  a 
few  months  later  Gedaliah,  the  Governor,  was  foully 
murdered,  and  fear  of  the  Chaldseans  led  even  those  who 
had  avenged  the  murder  and  rescued  "  the  king's  (Zede- 
kiah's)  daughters  "  (Jer.  xli.,  xlii.)  to  contemplate  flight 
into  Egypt.  Jeremiah,  in  God's  name,  urged  them  to 
remain,  and  told  them  that  their  flight  would  end  in  their 
destruction.  Angry  at  the  prophet,  Johanan  and  the 
rest  not  only  went  down  to  Egypt,  but  compelled 
Jeremiah  to  go  with  them.  They  settled  in  a  frontier 
place  called  Tahpahnes,  where  Jeremiah  gave  further 
prophecies  (ch.  xliii.,  &c).  As  a  special  sign,  he  was 
ordered  to  take  great  stones,  and  hide  them  in  mortar  in 
the  brick  pavement  (R.V.)  at  the  entrance  of  Pharaoh's 
palace  at  Tahpahnes,  then  to  declare  that  Egypt  would 
be  invaded  by  Nebuchadnezzar  of  Babylon,  who  would 
set  up  his  throne  on  these  stones  he  had  laid  (ch.  xliii.). 
The  prophecy  is  repeated  in  ch.  xliv.  30,  and  again  in 
fuller  form  in  ch.  xlvi.  13  ff.    (Cf.  Ezekiel  xxix.). 

This  place, 

TAHPAHNES, 

has  commonly  been  identified  with  the  later  Daphnae,  and 
its  site  was  discovered  in  a  mound  called  Tel-Defeuneh. 
Here  Flinders  Petrie  conducted  successful  excavations, 
laying  bare  the  palace,  and  the  square  of  brick  pavement 
which  stood  in  its  entrance.      Critics,  nevertheless,  have 

138 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

always  persistently  affirmed  the  failure  of  Jeremiah's 
prophecies  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  conquest  of  Egypt.*  Yet 
at  Syene  itself,  which  Ezekiel  notes  as  the  bound  of  the 
invasion  (ch.  xxix.  10),  the  statue  of  a  royal  official  has 
been  discovered,  in  which  this  personage  takes  credit  for 
having  repaired  the  Temple  after  it  had  been  laid  waste 
by  the  Babylonians,  whose  ravages,  he  declares,  he  had 
checked  at  Nubia.  The  following  may  be  cited  from 
Dr.  Pinches  :  "  Just  as  successful  were  Nebuchadnezzar's 
operations  against  Egypt.  According  to  an  Egyptian 
inscription,  the  Babylonian  king  attacked  Egypt  in  the 
year  577  B.C.,  penetrating  as  far  as  Syene  and  the  borders 
of  Ethiopia.  Hophra,  who  still  reigned,  was  deposed, 
the  General  Amasis  being  raised  to  the  throne  in  his  place 
to  rule  the  land  as  a  vassal  of  the  Babylonian  king. 
According  to  the  only  historical  fragment  of  the  reign  of 
this  king  known,  Nebuchadnezzar  made  an  expedition  to 
Egypt  in  his  37th  year.  This  was,  to  all  appearance, 
against  his  vassal  Amasis,  who,  like  Zedekiah,  had 
revolted  against  the  powers  that  raised  him  to  the  throne. 
The  rebellion  was  suppressed,  but  the  ultimate  fate  of 
Amasis  is  not  known. "t  Does  this  look  to  an  unpreju- 
diced eye  like  non-fulfilment  ? 

VI. 

In  connection  with  the  discoveries  at  Tahpahnes, 
Professor  Petrie  points  out  how  readily  Greek  names  of 
instruments  and  other  words  might  have  found  their  way 

*A  reviewer  has  written  of  my  own  book  :  "  It  is  patent  that  there 
are  sundry  predictions  in  Scripture  which  were  not  fulfilled — that  of 
Ezekiel,  for  instance,  that  Egypt  should  be  Nebuchadnezzar's  reward 
for  his  assault  on  Tyre.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  invaded  Egypt  is 
probable,  but  that  he  had  anything  like  a  permanent  possession  of  it 
is  certainly  not  true."  (Ezekiel  gives  40  years  to  the  captivity  of 
Egypt — a  round  number). 

fThe  O'T.  in  the  Light  of  Hist.  Records  &c,  pp.  400-1. 

139 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

into  Hebrew,  and  into  Babylon.*  This  bears  directly  on 
the  last  subject  I  shall  allude  to — the  light  thrown  by 
archaeology  on 

THE   BOOK   OF   DANIEL. 

This  book  has  been  the  subject  of  severe  attack,  and 
there  are  undeniably  difficulties  connected  with  it  which 
are  not  yet  satisfactorily  cleared  up.  The  fact  that  it  is 
written  partly  in  Hebrew,  partly  in  Aramaic,  has 
suggested  that  it  may  have  existed  in  two  versions,  and 
may  latterly  have  undergone  revision,  and  perhaps 
expansion.  The  one  thing  certain  is  that  the  attacks  on 
its  historical  trustworthiness  have  been  carried  to  quite 
unwarrantable  extremes.  I  take  up  a  popular  work — 
Professor  McFadyen's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament — 
and  find  the  author  revelling  in  demonstrations  of  the 
book's  inaccuracy  (pp.  320  ff.).  The  objections  are  old 
as  the  hills,  but  they  are  confidently  retailed  as  if  nothing 
of  the  nature  of  an  answer  to  them  had  ever  been  heard 
of.  E.g.,  "  There  was  no  siege  and  capture  of  Jerusalem 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  605  B.C.,  as  is  implied  in  i.  1 
(Cf.  Jer.  xxv.  1,  9-11),  nor,  indeed,  could  there  have  been 
any  till  after  the  decisive  battle  of  Carchemish,"  &c.  But 
Jehoiakim's  "  fourth  "  year  in  the  Jewish  reckoning  (Jer. 
xxv.  1)  was  his  "third"  year  in  the  Babylonian  way  of 
reckoningt  (Dan.  i.  1),  and  this  was  the  year  of  the  battle 
of  Carchemish  (Jer.  xlvi.  2  ;  probably  605  B.C.).  The 
expedition  is  that  referred  to  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  1  (Cf. 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  7),  when  hostages  were  no  doubt 
taken.  "  Again,  Belshazzar  is  regarded  as  the  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  (v.),  though  he  was  in  reality,  the  son 
of  Nabunaid."   So  Jesus  was  "  the  son  of  David,"  though 

*Ten  Years'  Digging,  pp.  54  ff.  ;  and  in  his  Tunis,  Pt.  ii.  p.  49. 
tThe  Babylonians  reckoned  from  the  first  year  after  accession. 
The  chronological  questions  are  too  intricate  to  be  gone  into  here- 

I40 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

not  his  immediate  descendant.  Not  much  is  known  of 
Nabonidus,  but  there  is  nothing  improbable  in  the 
supposition  that,  like  his  predecessor,  Neriglissar,  he 
sought  to  strengthen  his  hold  upon  the  throne  by  marry- 
ing a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  "Nor  is  there  any 
room  in  this  period  of  the  history  (538  B.C.)  for  '  Darius 
the  Mede'  (v.  31)."  On  the  contrary,  there  is  much 
plausibility  in  the  suggestion  that  Cyrus  gave  his  General, 
Gobryas,  for  a  time,  a  delegated  authority  in  Babylon. 
As  much  almost  is  implied  in  Cyrus's  own  words  in  his 
inscription  :  "  Peace  to  the  city  did  Cyrus  establish  ; 
peace  to  all  the  province  of  Babylon  did  Gobryas,  his 
Governor  proclaim.  Governors  in  Babylon  he  appointed." 
Such  objections  have  their  sole  ground  in 

OUR   IGNORANCE, 

but  it  is  strange  that  the  critic  does  not  tell  of  the  rebuke 
administered  to  such  reasoning  from  ignorance  by  the  dis- 
covery of  the  facts  about  Belshazzar  himself.  His  name, 
too,  was  utterly  unknown,  and  defenders  of  Daniel  were 
fain  to  identify  him  with  Nabonidus.  He  was  another 
plain  proof  of  the  "  unhistoricity  "  of  the  book.  Yet 
inscriptions  containing  his  name  have  multiplied,  till  we 
have  now  a  tolerably  clear  idea  of  his  position  and  part  in 
the  final  struggle.  It  is  not  improbable  that  he  is 
identical  with  the  "  Marduk-sar-uzur,"  in  the  third  year  of 
whose  reign  about  this  time  a  contract  tablet  is  dated 
(Marduk=Bel).  The  accounts  of  the  taking  of  Babylon 
in  the  inscription  would  seem  to  imply  that,  while 
Nabonidus  commanded  the  forces  in  the  field, 

BELSHAZZAR 

held  the  city  within.  When  its  outer  parts  were  taken 
after  the  defeat  and  capture  of  Nabonidus,  he  retreated 
to   the  citadel    and   held  it    against  Cyrus    for   several 

141 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

months.  At  length  it  was  overpowered,  and  Belshazzar 
was  slain. 

The  "  linguistic  "  objection  is  not  more  potent.  We 
are  told  of  "  no  less  than  five  Greek  words,"  which  occur 
in  two  verses  (ch.  iii.  4,  5) — strange  that  not  a  trace  of 
Greek  words  should  occur  anywhere  else — and  compel  us 
"  to  put  the  book  at  the  earliest,  with  the  Greek  period 
i.e.,  after  331  B.C.)."  But  why?  Because  one 
("  psanterin"),  by  its  change  of  1  (' psalterion ')  into  n 
"betrays  the  influence  of  the  Macedonian  dialect  " — a  quite 
groundless  assertion*  ;  "  and  another,  '  symphonia,'  is 
first  found  in  Plato."  Seeing,  however,  that  neither 
Plato  nor  any  other  Greek  classical  writer  ever  uses  this 
word  in  the  sense  of  a  musical  instrument,  the  point  of 
the  argument  is  not  very  obvious.  Hommel  claims  for 
the  word  a  Chaldsean  origin. 

I  do  not  dwell  on  the  interpretations  given  by  these 
writers  of 

THE   PROPHECIES 

in  Daniel,  though  I  own  that  they  appear  to  me  forced 
and  unnatural  in  the  extreme.  What,  e.g.,  are  we  to 
think  of  the  proposal  to  date  "the  going  forth  of  the 
commandment  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem  "  (Dan.  ix. 
25),  in  the  prophecy  of  the  70  weeks,  from  586  B.C.,  the 
date  of  the  exile  ?  (McFadyen).  Or  to  make  the  first 
seven  weeks  (=  49  years)  run  out  with  the  edict  of  Cyrus 
(537  B.C.)  ?  Or  to  identify  the  last  week  of  the  70  with 
171-164,  immediately  preceding  the  death  of  Antiochus  ? 
While  it  is  admitted  that  the  intervening  period  of  62  weeks 
(=  434  years)  cannot  be  got  in  between  537  and  171 
(=  366  years).  Yet  Mr.  McFadyen  is  of  opinion  that 
"  with  the  first  and  last  [of  the  above]  periods  there  is  no 

*See  Pusey's  Daniel,  pp.  27-8,  and  "Note"  prefixed  to  2nd  Edit., 
p.  36. 

142 


Archaeology  as  Searchlight 

difficulty";  and  the  middle  period  is  got  over  by  the 
remark  that  probably  "  during  much  of  this  long  period 
the  Jews  had  no  fixed  method  of  computing  time "  ! 
"Traditional  apologetics"  has  little  to  compare  with 
shifts  like  these. 

I  have  adduced  enough,  I  think,  to  show  that  the  Bible 
has  nothing  to  fear,  but  everything  to  hope  for,  from  the 
light  that  archaeology  can  cast  upon  it. 


143 


VII 

The  Citadel — Christ 


The  Citadel — Christ 

TILL  recently,  attention  has  been  chiefly  absorbed  in 
the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament ;  now,  as  was 
hinted  in  the  opening  paper,  the  battle  about  the 
Bible  tends  again  to  concentrate  itself  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  supremely  about  the  Central  Figure  there — 
Christ  Himself. 
This  result  was  inevitable.     The  question 

"WHAT  THINK   YE   OF   CHRIST?" 

is  one  to  which  every  age  must  anew  give  an  answer,  and 
into  which,  as  time  rolls  on,  every  fresh  phase  in  the 
controversy  between  faith  and  unbelief  invariably  resolves 
itself.  Probably  the  question  was  never  raised  in  a  more 
acute  form  than  it  is  at  the  present  moment.  It  is  a 
marvellous  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  apostolic 
declaration,  "  God  gave  unto  Him  the  name  which  is 
above  every  name  "  (Phil.  ii.  9),  that  in  all  the  whirl  of 
controversy  the  one  thing  on  which  earnest  men  seem  to 
be  agreed  is,  that  on  Christ  and  His  religion,  in  some 
form,  depend  the  world's  religious  hopes.  A  very  negative 
writer,  Weinel,  does  not  hesitate  to  say:  "After  Jesus 
there  is  either  His  religion  or  no  religion."*  But  who  is 
Jesus,  and  what  is  His  religion  ?  Here  the  roads  part, 
and  a  great  gulf  appears  between  those  who  receive  Jesus 
* Jesus  im  Neunzehnten  Jahrhundert,  p.  292. 

147 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

as  the  New  Testament  presents  Him,  and  those  who,  pro- 
fessing to  revere  Him  as  the  spiritual  leader  of  the  future, 
yet  strip  Him  of  every  supernatural  attribute,  and,  in 
loyalty,  as  they  think,  to  the  exigencies  of  modern 
thought,  reduce  Him  to  simply  human  and  natural  dimen- 
sions. 

I. 

For  this  avowedly  is  the  alternative  with  which  we  are 
now  presented.  Observers  of  the  signs  of  the  times  have 
long  seen  it  coming,*  and  we  should  be  thankful  that  dis- 
guises are  at  length  being  thrown  off,  and  that  we  are 
frankly,  and  even  passionately,  told  that  nothing  but  a 

PURELY   HUMANITARIAN   CHRIST 

will  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  modern  intellect. 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  Gospels  and  other  New  Testa- 
ment writings  give  us  a  very  different  picture.  Prof.  N. 
Schmidt,  in  his  book,  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  fully  allows 
that  the  Christology  of  the  creeds  is  a  consistent  develop- 
ment of  what  is  found  in  the  New  Testament.  "There 
is  no  chasm,"  he  truly  says,  "  between  the  latest  forms 
of  thought  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  conceptions 

*I  have  personally  constantly  urged  that  this  was  the  "  gravita- 
tion-level "  of  most  of  our  modern  theories  about  Christ.  In  an  essay 
on  "  The  Parisian  School  of  Theology,"  in  my  volume  on  Ritsch- 
lianism,  I  wrote  :  "  A  universal  Father-God,  whose  presence  fills  the 
world  and  all  human  spirits  ;  Jesus,  the  soul  of  the  race  in  whom  the 
consciousness  of  the  Father,  and  the  corresponding  spirit  of  filial 
love,  first  came  to  full  realisation  ;  the  spirit  of  filial  sonship  learned 
from  Jesus  as  the  essence  of  religion  and  salvation — such  in  sum  is 
the  new  theology.  All  else  is  dressing,  disguise,  Aberglaube,  religious 
symbolism,  inheritance  of  effete  dogmatisms.  Will  this  suffice  for 
Christianity?  It  is  this  question  which  the  Church  of  the  immediate 
future  will  have  to  face,  and  meet  with  a  very  distinct  '  yes'  or  'no' 
(pp.  1 5 1-2)."     That  crisis  seems  now  upon  us. 

148 


The  Citadel — Christ 

prevalent  in  other  [?]  Christian  writers  of  the  second 
century.  .  .  The  creeds  are  a  consistent  development 
of  certain  ideas  that  unquestionably  hold  an  important 
place  in  New  Testament  literature.  .  .  .  The  chief 
factors  in  the  construction  of  Christological  dogma  were 
an  honest  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  and  an  equally 
honest  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  Christian  experience  " 
(pp.  4-6).  This  bears  out  what  has  often  been  urged  on 
deaf  ears,  that  the  assault  on  so-called  "dogmas"  about 
Christ  is  not  simply  an  attack  on  Church  creeds,  but,  at 
bottom,  an  attack  on  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
itself;  and  it  is  good,  again,  to  have  matters  brought  to 
this  naked  issue. 

Nevertheless,  the  Christ  of  "dogma,"  i.e.,  a  truly 
supernatural,  divine  Christ — the  Incarnate  Son — is 
rejected,  and  the  newer  science  sets  itself  to  disengage 
the  real,  historical,  non-miraculous  Jesus  from  the 
wrappages  of  tradition  and  legend  in  which  His  image  is 
enswathed.  When  this  is  done,  His  person  and  religion 
are  naturally  found  to  have  no  resemblance  to  the  Christ 
of  the  Pauline  writings,  and  a  cleft  is  assumed  to  exist 
between  the  genuine  teaching  of  Jesus  and  the  theology 
of  Paul,  who  is  credited  with  having  given  the  lead  to 
the  disfigurement  of  Christianity  that  has  since  prevailed. 

It  cannot  be  too  strongly  repeated  that  here  is 

THE  TRUE   CENTRE 

of  current  religious  controversy.  The  views  just  indicated 
penetrate  books,  newspapers,  magazines.  In  Germany 
an  able  and  intensely  active  party  has  set  itself  to  their 
propagation  in  the  Press,  and  by  means  of  cheap, 
popularly- written  books  (Volksbiicher).  Writers  like 
Bousset,  Neumann,  Wernle  represent  them  in  translation 
in  this  country.  The  aid  of  fiction  is  called  in,  and  the 
novel  Holyland  (Hilligenlei),  now  also  translated,  which 

149 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

embodies  a  life  of  Jesus  on  the  new  lines,  sells  in  its  tens 
and  well-nigh  its  hundreds  of  thousands.  In  America 
the  movement  is  represented  by  recent  books  of  the  kind 
already  named,  Professor  Foster's  Finality  of  the  Christian 
Religion  and  Professor  Schmidt's  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth. 
All  which  gives  matter  for  thought ;  for  gratitude,  too,  I 
think,  in  the  proof  it  affords  that  Jesus  retains  His 
supreme  interest  for  the  thoughts  of  men,  and  is  to-day, 
as  ever,  compelling  decision  on  His  character  and  claims. 
Anything  rather  than  indifference.  When  Christ  is  fairly 
set  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  His  claims  may  be  trusted 
to  take  care  of  themselves. 

I  shall  say  little  more  than  I  have  done  on  the  connec- 
tion of  this  new  phase  of  New  Testament  criticism  with  the 

OLD   TESTAMENT   CRITICISM 

we  have  already  studied,  though  that  is  an  aspect  of  the 
subject  which  should  not  be  overlooked.  The  one  move- 
ment is,  in  truth,  merely  a  continuation  of  the  other. 
The  same  principles,  the  same  methods,  rule  in  both.  It 
was  to  common-sense  vision  an  impossibility  for  criticism 
to  riot  in  the  fashion  it  had  been  doing  for  some  decades 
in  the  old  Testament,  without  at  an  early  period  descend- 
ing, flushed  with  its  successes  there,  to  wreak  a  like  work 
of  disintegration  on  the  New  Testament.  Only  folly 
could  imagine  that  it  was  possible  to  stand  permanently 
with  an  advanced  liberal  leg  in  the  Old  Testament  and  a 
conservative  leg  in  the  New.  As  Professor  Schmidt  puts 
it :  "  The  movement  could  not  stop  at  the  Old  Testa- 
ment "  (p.  29).  The  critics,  therefore,  have  the  fullest 
justification  for  claiming  that  their  New  Testament  work 
is  but  the  logical  carrying  out  of  the  principles  for  which 
assent  had  been  obtained  in  Old  Testament  study ;  and 
surprise  need  not  be  felt  when  one  sees  Old  Testament 
scholars   like  Wellhausen  and  Gunkel  coming   forward 

150 


The  Citadel — Christ 

to  take  their  share  in  New  Testament  discussion.  To 
some  this  will  lend  additional  sanction  to  the  results 
reached  in  the  New  Testament;  to  others,  perhaps  a 
larger  number,  the  results  may  cast  doubt,  retrospectively, 
on  the  whole  critical  procedure. 

II. 

What  verdict  is  now  to  be  passed  on  this  new,  so- 
called  "historical-religious"  view  of  Jesus,  in  which  the 
credit  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles — not  to  say  the  whole 
conception  of  Christianity  as  the  world  has  hitherto  under- 
stood it — is  so  absolutely  at  stake  ?  I  propose,  in  the 
first  instance,  to  let  the  new  view 

PASS   JUDGMENT   ON    ITSELF 

by  looking  simply  at  the  forces  at  work  in  its  construction, 
and  at  the  kind  of  results  they  yield. 

First  of  all,  it  is  important  to  observe  that,  in  the  new 
theories  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  in  the  radical  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism,  the  assumed  premiss  of  the  entire  treat- 
ment is 

THE  DENIAL  OF  THE  SUPERNATURAL. 

This  is  where  Professor  Julius  Kaftan,  of  Berlin,  in  his 
pamphlet,  Jesus  und  Paulus,  formerly  noticed,  joins  issue. 
You  claim,  he  says,  to  be  applying  an  historical  method. 
In  reality  your  procedure  has  not  its  roots  in  method  at 
all.  What  lies  behind  it  is  "the  so-called  '  modern  view 
of  the  world  '  " — a  view  which  embraces  everything  in  an 
unbroken  causal  connection  (pp.  4,  5).  This  being  pre- 
supposed, the  view  of  Christ  and  Christianity  has  to  be 
clipped  down  to  suit,  at  whatever  expense  to  the  history.* 

*I  formerly  quoted  some  of  Kaftan's  strong  words  in  this  connection. 
I    may   give    another   sentence  or  two.    The    new    procedure,    he 

151 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

This  anti-supernaturalistic  principle  is  not  only  admitted, 
but  is  paraded,  in  all  the  works  I  have  named.  A  man 
is  not  a  "  modern  "  who  does  not  admit  it.  Professor 
Foster  goes  further,  and  affirms:  "An  intelligent  man 
who  now  affirms  his  faith  in  such  stories  ['  miraculous 
narratives,  like  the  Biblical  'J  as  actual  facts  can  hardly 
know  what  intellectual  honesty  means  "  (p.  132).  It  has 
come  then  to  this,  that,  in  a  book  published  wi+h  the 
endorsement  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  it  is  declared 
that  a  man  who  believes  any  longer  in  the  resurrection  cf 
Jesus  can  hardly  be  intellectually  honest.  Such  arrogance, 
like  "vaulting  ambition,"  "  o'erleaps  itself,"  and  only 
discredits  the  cause  it  is  meant  to  support. 

This,  however,  is  the  fundamental  assumption  of  all 
these  writers — of  Bousset,  of  Wernle,  of  Professor 
Schmidt,  of  the  author  of  the  story  Holyland,  the  Jesus 
of  which  is  a  nervous,  self-doubting,  semi-hysterical  being, 
whose  ideals  are  often  admirable,  but  whose  sanity  is 
sometimes  doubtful.     Granting  it,  it  is  easy  to  see 

WHAT   HAVOC   IT   MAKES 

of  the  Gospels.  Jesus  has,  at  all  costs,  to  be  reduced  to 
natural  dimensions.  He  is  a  man  naturally  born  (Well- 
hausen  simply  cuts  out  Matt.  i.  ii.,  and  Luke  i.  ii.). 
His  parents  were  Joseph  and  Mary.  He  wrought  no 
miracles  in  the  proper  sense,  though  faith  cures  may  be 
attributed  to  Him.  It  is  doubtful  if  He  even  claimed  to  be 
the  Messiah  (Schmidt  denies  it ;  Foster  is  doubtful,  but 
allows  the   probability).      When  He  died  there  was  an 

says,  means  this  :  "  We  will  know  the  history,  not  as  it  is  or  was, 
but  as  it  ought  to  be.  Ought  to  be  according  to  our  presuppositions, 
according  to  the  presuppositions  of  our  modern  view  of  the  world  " 
(p.  5).  And  he  declares  that  to  this  mode  of  treatment  ''the  believ- 
ing community  will  never  adapt  itself.  It  will  feel  it  to  be  an  apostacy 
from  faith.  And  this  feeling  which  it  has  is  thoroughly  justified  in 
fact "  (p.  9). 

152 


The  Citadel — Christ 

earthly  end  of  Him.  The  resurrection  stories  are  legen- 
dary :  what  really  lay  behind  them  no  one  now  knows,  and 
science  does  not  concern  itself  to  ask.  Precisely  ;  but 
then,  as  one  likewise  sees,  all  this  was  really  settled  before 
the  inquiry  began  ;  there  is,  therefore,  no  particular 
"critical  method"  involved  in  it.  The  problem  to  be 
dealt  with  was :  "  Assumed,  to  start  with,  that  nothing 
supernatural  entered  into  the  birth,  life,  and  death  of 
Jesus,  how  to  explain  away  the  narratives  which  say  that 
it  did  ?  "  The  whole  matter,  obviously,  is  a  foregone  con- 
clusion, and  unbiassed  consideration  of  evidence  is  an 
impossibility. 

This  raises  the   question,  which    may   be  glanced  at 
before  going  further — 

BY   WHAT   RIGHT 

is  the  supernatural  thus  ruled  out  of  the  history  of 
revelation,  and  specially  out  of  the  history  of 
Christ  ?  It  will  be  difficult,  indeed,  for  these  able  gentle- 
men, who  so  freely  charge  "  intellectual  dishonesty"  on 
their  opponents,  to  give  an  answer  which  does  not  already 
beg  the  question.  I  notice  that  the  intellectual  lineage 
they  claim  for  themselves  as  "  moderns  "  usually  has  at 
its  head  Spinoza,  and  I  grant  that,  in  a  system  like 
Spinoza's,  where  God  and  Nature  are  one,  there  is  no 
room  for  such  deviations  from,  or  transcendencies  of,  the 
natural  order  as  we  call 

"miracle." 

But  it  is  surely  vastly  different  in  a  theistic  scheme,  in 
which  God  has  a  being  above  the  world  as  well  as  in  it, 
is  a  Being  of  Fatherly  love,  deeply  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  His  creatures,  is  free,  self-determined,  pur- 
poseful, has  moral  ends,  overrules  causes  and  events  for 
the  inbringing  of  a  Kingdom  of  God.  On  this,  the  Christian 

J53 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

view  of  God,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why,  for  high  ends  of 
revelation  and  redemption,  a  supernatural  economy  should 
not  be  engrafted  on  the  natural,  achieving  ends  which 
could  not  be  naturally  attained  ;  and  why  the  evidence  for 
such  an  economy  should,  a  priori,  be  ruled  out  of  con- 
sideration. The  Christian  thinker  will  not  lightly  accuse 
his  opponents  of  "  intellectual  dishonesty,"  but  he  may 
with  justice  charge  them  with  intellectual  inconsistency  y  in 
denying  to  God,  as  so  conceived,  a  power  of  entering,  for 
redeeming  ends,  in  a  supernatural  way,  into  human 
history. 

This  is,  in  short,  a  matter  to  be  determined,  not  by 

A   PRIORI  ASSUMPTIONS, 

but  on  the  ground  of  evidence ;  and  it  is  equally  a  begging 
of  the  question  to  say  that  evidence  cannot  exist  of  a 
kind,  degree,  and  quality  adequate  to  sustain  faith  in  the 
supernatural  facts  involved  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  Here  is 
an  ultimate  dividing-line,  and  there  is  not  the  least  likeli- 
hood that  the  general  intelligence  of  men  will  ever  endorse 
the  high  a  briori  negations  of  the  modern  theorists. 


III. 

The  chief  instrument  by  which  the  evidence  for  Christ's 
supernatural  claims  is  broken  down  in  these  theories,  I 
observe  next,  is  a 

RADICAL   CRITICISM   OF   THE   GOSPELS, 

analogous  to  what  we  have  seen  employed  in  the  Old 
Testament.  The  criticism  will  be  looked  at  by  itself  in 
a  succeeding  paper  ;  meanwhile,  I  note  only  a  few  results. 
The  Gospels  are  taken  from  the  writers  whose  names 
they  bear,  are  put  late,  are  declared  to  be  in  their  main 
contents  legendary,  are  accepted,  rejected,  altered,  recon- 

154 


The  Citadel — Christ 

structed,  at  the  critic's  good  pleasure.  With  what  result  ? 
Everything,  of  course,  that  militates  against  the  natural- 
istic hypothesis  is  cleared  away.  As  to  how  much  is  left 
the  authorities  differ.  Some  of  the  more  extreme  will 
not  allow  Jesus  to  be  an  historical  figure  at  all  * ;  at 
most,  only  a  few  sayings  can  be  attributed  to  Him  with 
certainty  (Schmiedel).  Others  do  not  go  so  far,  and 
rescue  from  the  "sources"  the  more  or  less  vague  out- 
line of  His  ministry,  and  (probably)  certain  fragments  of 
His  teaching.  It  was  with  "  a  deep  satisfaction,"  Pro- 
fessor Schmidt  tells  us,  that  he  found  himself  "  borne 
along  "  to  the  conviction  "  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  actually 
existed,"  and  that  some  of  the  events  of  His  life  and 
some  of  His  words  may  be  recovered  !  (pp.  233-4).  Even 
if  Professor  Schmidt  retains  this  as  a  personal  conviction, 
one  wonders  how,  in  the  clash  of  contradictory  opinions, 
he  is  to  convey  his  conviction  to  others,  so  as  to  make  it, 
as  he  hopes,  the  basis  of  a  religion  of  the  future. 

On  much,  however,  even  in  this  minimum  of  knowledge 
about  Jesus,  there  rests  by  admission 

GREAT  UNCERTAINTY. 

It  is  doubted,  for  instance,  as  by  Wrede,  Schmidt,  and 
others,  whether  Jesus  ever  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah. 
Testimonies  that  He  did  are  got  rid  of  by  the  usual 
methods.  With  more  plausibility  it  is  denied  by  a  con- 
siderable section  (Wellhausen,  Schmidt,  &c.)  that  Jesus 
ever  used  the  title  "The  Son  of  Man"  as  a  Messianic 
designation,  or  in  an  emphatic  sense  at  all.  Jesus  spoke 
in  Aramaic,  and  the  (alleged)  Aramaic  equivalent  of  this 

*Prof.  Foster  writes  :  "  At  this  writing  the  sensation  of  the  hour  in 
theological  Germany  is  a  brilliant  and  effective  pastor,  who  has  con- 
cluded that  Jesus  was  an  ideal  construction  of  a  definite  social  circle" 
(p.  326).  The  book,  from  which  quotations  are  given,  is,  Das 
Christus-Problem,  by  A.  Kalthoff(i903). 

J55 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

phrase,  barnasha,*  means  simply,  we  are  told,  "  man." 
So  most  of  the  passages  in  which  the  phrase  occurs  are 
emptied  of  their  significance,  and  the  word  "  man  "  is 
substituted  (e.g.,  "  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins,"  "Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,"  Mark  ii.  10,  28). 
But  not  to  refer  to  other  passages  where  this  meaning  is 
impossible,  the  theory  shatters  on  the  simple  fact  that 
the  authors  of  our  Greek  Gospels  who,  presumably,  knew 
Aramaic,  and  were,  on  the  theory,  translating  from  it, 
plainly  attached  to  the  word  or  phrase  the  unique  sense, 
"the  Son  of  Man."  Most  scholars,  accordingly,  now 
again  reject  this  philological  speculation,  and  allow  that 
Jesus  used  the  title,  as  also  the  title  "  Son  of  God," 
which  Schmidt  would  take  from  Him  likewise.  Still 
more  futile  is  the  attempt  to  eradicate 

THE   MESSIANIC   CLAIM 

from  the  life  of  Jesus.  If  any  fact  in  history  is  well- 
attested,  it  is  that  Jesus  was  put  to  death  for  claiming  to 
be  the  "  King  of  the  Jews  " — the  Messiah.  His  words, 
actions,  claims,  parables,  the  functions  He  ascribes  to 
Himself  (e.g.,  Judge  of  the  world),  His  behaviour  on  His 
last  journey,  the  consentient  accounts  of  His  trial,  admit 
of  no  other  explanation.  This  is  a  rock-fast  fact,  on 
which  criticism  beats  itself  in  vain.t 

There  is,  however,  yet  another  branch  of  the  newer 
critical  method  which  has  of  late  come  into  great 
prominence  and  bids  fair  to  be  more  heard  of  in  the 
future — I  mean  the  application  to  the  Gospels  of  the 
method  of 

*It  is  very  doubtful  if  this  was  the  term  Jesus  employed. 

tEven  Bousset  says  in  his  Jesus  :  "  It  will  be  recognised  more  and 
more  clearly  as  time  goes  on  that  the  criticism  which  attempts  to  shake 
these  well-established  points  of  the  tradition  merely  succeeds  in  over- 
reaching itself"  (p.  170). 

156 


The  Citadel — Christ 


COMPARATIVE   MYTHOLOGY. 

This,  likewise,  is  found  a  serviceable  instrument  for  dis- 
sipating such  narratives  as  those  of  the  Virgin-birth  and 
of  the  Resurrection  into  fantasies.     Professor  Gunkel,  of 
Berlin,  has  made  a  noteworthy  incursion  into  this  field 
in  a  contribution  to  The  Religious-Historical  Understanding 
oj  the  New  Testament,  but  illustrations  can  be  found  nearer 
home.     Like  Gunkel,  and  like  Farnell  in  his  Evolution  of 
Religion,  Dr.  Cheyne,  in  his  Bible  Problems,  applies  the 
"comparative"  method,  and  finds   the   key  to  what  is 
most  distinctive  in  the  Gospel  history  in  ethnic  mytho- 
logy.    He,   too,  complains  that,  while   Old   Testament 
criticism  was  sweeping  the  field,  "  the  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  New  Testament  was  practically  set  on  one  side  " 
(pp.  ii,  12),  and  he  endeavours  in  this  volume  to  do  some- 
thing   to    supply  the   lack.     On  the  basis   of  Arabian, 
Babylonian,  Egyptian,  and  Persian  parallels,   he  seeks  to 
show  how  beliefs  like  those  of  the  Virgin-birth  of  Jesus, 
His  descent  into  Hades,  {not  in  the  Gospels),  His  resur- 
rection, and  His  ascension  arose.     "  On  the  ground  of 
facts  supplied  by  archaeology,  it  is  plausible,"  he  thinks, 
"to  hold  that  all  these  arose  out  of  a  pre-Christian  sketch 
of  the  life,  death,  and  exaltation  of  the  expected  Messiah 
[a  thing  no  one  ever  heard  of] ,  itself  ultimately  derived 
from  a  widely-current  mythic  tradition  respecting  a  solar 
deity  "  (p.  128).     Paul's  statement  "  that  Christ  died  and 
that   He  rose  again  'according   to   the   Scriptures,'    in 
reality  points  to  a  pre-Christian   sketch   of  the  life   of 
Christ,  partly — as  we  have  seen — derived  from   widely- 
spread    non-Jewish    myths    and     embodied    in    Jewish 
writings  "  (p.  113). 

One  has  only  to  take  with  this  derivation  of  essential 
Christian  beliefs  from  "  primitive  Oriental  myths " 
(p.  117)  the  admission  of  Wellhausen  in  his  Introduction 

157 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

to  the  First  Three  Gospels,  "  The  resurrection  was  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  faith,  the  heavenly  Christ, 
the  living  and  present  head  of  the  disciples  "  (p.  96),  to 
see  whither  such  theories  tend.  But  the  reader  will  also 
mark  the  foundation — 

A   PURELY   IMAGINARY   "  PRE-CHRISTIAN    SKETCH,"* 

based  on  Babylonian  and  other  myths,  which  is  first 
thought  of  as  "  plausible,"  then  is  converted  into  a 
certainty,  and  reasoned  from  as  a  fact!  By  such 
gossamer  theories  it  is  actually  thought  possible  to  sub- 
vert the  faith  of  Christendom  in  its  most  characteristic 
facts ! 

As  a  type  of  theory  of  a  yet  more  extravagant,  but  still 
kindred  order,  I  might  refer  to  the  extraordinary  specula- 
tion on  the  origin  of  Christianity  in  that  much-belauded 
but,  in  this  region,  utterly  fantastic  book, 

DR.   J.   G.    FRAZER'S   "  GOLDEN    BOUGH."! 

The  facts  to  be  explained  are  the  circumstances  of  our 
Lord's  crucifixion  (or  the  stories  about  these)  and  the 
belief  in  His  divinity.  For  a  clue  to  the  belief,  Dr. 
Frazer  goes  back  to  the  Babylonians  and  Persians.  These 
people,  he  tells  us,  had  a  custom,  at  a  spring  festival,  of 
dressing  a  condemned  criminal  in  the  royal  robes,  en- 
throning him,  granting  him  for  five  days  all  the  privileges 
of  the  king — an  incarnation  of  the  god,  for  whom  the 
criminal  was  a  substitute — then  stripping,  flogging,  and 
hanging  him.  At  an  earlier  period,  he  avers,  the  king 
himself,  after  one  year's  reign,  had  been  wont  to  be 
sacrificed.  The  Jews  are  supposed  to  have  taken  over 
this  custom  from  the  Persians,  and  to  have  observed  it 

*Prof.  Schmidt  also  has  his  hypothetical  pre-Christian  Aramaic 
apocalypse,  which  he  thinks  is  used  in  the  Gospels  (p.  132). 

tThe  theory  is  propounded  in  the  second  edition  of  the  work. 

158 


The  Citadel — Christ 

at  the  feast  known  as  Purim.  They  further  borrowed  a 
practice  assumed  to  have  existed  of  keeping  a  pair  of  con- 
demned criminals,  one  of  whom  was  sacrificed,  the  other 
was  set  free.  It  was  in  a  scene  of  this  kind  that  Jesus 
is  conjectured  to  have  taken  the  part  of  the  mock-king, 
and,  after  having  had  the  honours  of  royalty,  with  its 
accompanying  divinity,  thrust  upon  Him,  to  have  been 
ignominiously  stripped,  scourged,  and  crucified  ! 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  treat  this  theory  of  Dr. 
Frazer's  as  a  serious  explanation  of  the  events  of  the 
crucifixion.  But  the  reader  will  certainly  be  astonished 
to  discover,  if  he  takes  the  trouble  to  inquire,  that  the 
whole  thing,  from  bottom  to  top,  is  a 

PYRAMID  OF  BASELESS  CONJECTURE. 

There  is  not,  so  far  as  appears,  a  scintilla  of  real 
evidence  that  the  Babylonians  or  Persians  ever  had  such 
a  custom  of  sacrificing  a  god-king,  or  a  substitute,  at  a 
spring  festival ;  or  that  the  Jews  borrowed  or  possessed 
it ;  or  that  such  scenes  as  are  described  were  enacted  at 
the  feast  of  Purim  ;  or  that  any  such  ideas  were  con- 
nected with  Christ's  mockery,  scourging,  and  death !  * 

It  is  pitiful  to  think  of  such  a  tissue  of  fancies  being 
seriously  put  forward  (even  though  "  with  diffidence  ")  by 
a  scholar  who  is  far  too  enlightened  to  accept  the 
straightforward  narratives  of  the  Gospels. 


IV. 

It  is  now  our  turn  to  look  at  these  theories  of  a  non- 
miraculous  Christ  with  critical  eyes,  and  to  ask  how  far 

*See  the  whole  theory,  with  its  germ  in  an  anecdote  (possibly 
mythical)  attributed  to  Diogenes  the  Cynic  by  Dion  Chrysostom 
(end  of  first  contury)  subjected  to  a  minute  and  shattering  examina- 
tion in  Andrew  Lang's  Ma%ic  and  Religion. 

159 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

their  own  principle,  in  the  hands  of  these  writers,  can  be 

CONSISTENTLY   CARRIED   THROUGH, 

and,  if  it  is,  with  what  results. 

Suppose,  for  example,  the  physical  miracles  are 
surrendered  in  obedience  to  this  denial  of  the  miraculous 
— of  course,  they  are  not  surrendered — what  of  the 
spiritual  miracle — 

THE   SINLESSNESS   OF   CHRIST? 

Here  is  something,  supposing  it  granted,  quite  as  much 
above  the  sphere  of  nature  as  we  know  it — as  truly 
requiring  a  supernatural  cause  to  explain  it — as  any 
miracle  of  power.  Here,  in  the  Gospels,  is  the  picture  of 
the  One  Being  in  history,  who,  with  unparalleled  spiritual 
insight,  betrays  absolutely  no  consciousness  of  sin  in 
Himself,  who  knows  no  repentance,  who  was  accepted  by 
those  who  knew  Him  best  as  without  sin,  who  is  the 
physician,  Saviour,  forgiver  of  sinners,  but  never  classes 
Himself  with  them,  whose  recorded  words,  acts,  spirit, 
and  total  behaviour  bear  out  this  character  of  spotless 
holiness  and  unbroken  unity  of  will  with  God — how  is 
such  an  One  to  be  fitted  into  the  natural  scheme.  Can 
it  be  done  ? 

It  cannot  be  done.  Not  one  of  these  writers  but 
hedges  when  he  comes  to  the  question  of  the  sinlessness 
of  Jesus.  Prof.  Foster  will  go  no  further  than  to  say  that 
He  is  "the  best  we  know"  (p.  482).  Prof.  Schmidt 
says :  "  He  seems  to  have  had  no  morbid  sense  of  sin. 
His  consciousness  of  imperfection  was  swallowed  up  in 
the  sense  of  divine  love"  (p.  25).*  Both  writers  lay 
stress  on  Christ's  word,  "  No  one  is  good  but  God,"  and 
infer  from  it  that  "  He  remained  conscious  of  this  great 
distance  from  God"  (Foster,  p.  345  ;  cf.  Schmidt,  p.  152; 

*"  Sin  "  has  little  place  in  this  writer's  book  at  all  :  his  Index  does 
not  mention  it  in  any  connection. 

160 


The  Citadel — Christ 

Bousset,  p.  202).  The  author  of  the  novel  Holyland 
affirms  boldly,  "  His  nature  was  not  wholly  free  from 
evil,"  and  refuses  to  be  bound  even  by  His  morality 
(p.  359) — indeed,  plays  loose  with  morality  in  his  book 
to  the  degree  of  sanctioning  immorality.*  Thus,  under 
the  new  influences,  the  decomposition  of  even  Christ's 
moral  image  and  moral  doctrine  proceeds.  All,  it  must 
be  contended,  in  wanton  defiance  of  the  historical  reality. 
Or  take  what  is  left  us  by  the  better  class  of  these 
writers — 

A   GREAT,   SPIRITUAL,   FORCEFUL   PERSONALITY, 

with  true  knowledge  of  God,  and  elevation  and  originality 
of  moral  character,  qualifying  Him  to  be  the  spiritual 
leader  of  mankind.  How  is  even  this  to  be  accounted 
for  ?  Does  the  non-miraculous  view  of  Christ  explain  it  ? 
Here,  strangely  enough,  in  Prof.  Foster's  book,  we  come 
on  something  singularly  like  a  retraction  of  the  proposi- 
tion with  which  we  set  out,  viz.,  that  nothing  can  be 
admitted  of  the  nature  of  miracle.  For  we  are  now 
explicitly  told  (what  is  most  true)  that  Jesus  is  inexplic- 
able psychologically,  causally,  or  by  evolutional 
development  (pp.  265,  267) ;  that  something  derived 
creatively  from  God  is  necessary  to  explain  His  con- 
sciousness. Psychological  analysis,  we  read,  "  collapses 
on  the  immediacy  of  His  consciousness.  Ultimately  we 
stand  before  the  insoluble  datum  of  His  certainty  of  a 
special  communion  with  God,  and  of  His  knowledge  of 
God  arising  thereby.  It  is  not  possible  to  escape  from 
the  recognition  of  an  active  and  creative  moment  in  the 

*A  sympathetic  expounder  of  the  ideas  of  Frenssen's  book  writes  : 
"  If  his  theological  teaching  is  considered  dangerous  by  many,  his 
moral  teaching  and  its  probable  effect  on  the  youth  of  Germany  is 
regarded  with  still  more  trepidation.  .  .  .  No  wonder  that  even 
one  of  his  friends  in  the  Liberal  camp  says,  '  We  are  afraid  for  the 
youth  of  our  land.'  "    {Scotsman,  October  20,  1906). 

161  M 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

consciousness  of  Jesus,  which,  just  on  that  account,  can- 
not be  causally  explained  "  (p.  265).  "  The  empirical  in- 
explicability  of  Jesus  may  as  well  be  conceded  "  (p.  267). 
True,  but  is  there  not  here  the  break  up  of  the  author's 
earlier  scheme  of  thought,  in  which  no  room  seemed  left 
for  the  immediate  entrance  of  God  into  either  the 
material  or  the  spiritual  order?  And  if  "empirically 
inexplicable"  facts  occur  in  the  spiritual  order,  why  may 
they  not  occur  in  the  natural  order  as  well  ?  Is  the 
former  less  a  domain  of  law  than  the  latter  ? 

All  this,  however,  it  is  to  be  confessed,  does  not  carry 
us  very  far.     It  leaves  us  still  far  short  of  that  perfect 

ONENESS  OF  THOUGHT  AND  WILL 

with   the  Father   (Matt.  xi.  27)  which,  combined  with 
Christ's  consciousness  of  His  own   unique   dignity   and 
place  in  revelation,  and  with  claims,  functions,  preroga- 
tives which  no  ordinary  messenger  of  God  ever  dared  to 
claim,  only  finds  its  adequate  explanation  in  that  relation 
to  the  Father,  going  beyond  all  time,  which  the  Pauline 
Epistles  and  Fourth   Gospel  unfold  to  us.     This  perfect 
"  solidarity "    of  Christ  with    God — to   use  a  phrase   of 
Ritschl's — is  as  much  a  fact  of  the  first  three  Gospels  as 
it  is  of  the  Gospel  of  John.     It  was  not,  as  alleged,  from 
Alexandrian  philosophy,  or  any  form  of  "  metaphysics," 
but,  as  John  tells  us,  with  his  feet  on  the  earth,  as  the 
result  of  what   he    had    himself    seen,    heard,    beheld, 
handled  of  Jesus,  that  this  Apostle  rose  to  the  assurance 
that   in    Him   "the   life   was   manifested,"    even     "the 
eternal  life,  which  was  with  the  Father  and  was  mani- 
fested unto  us  "  (1  John  i.  2) ;  or,  as  he  states  it  in  the 
Gospel,    "  We  beheld    His   glory,   glory  as  of  an    only- 
begotten  from  the  Father,"  and  so  were  able  to  affirm, 
"  The  Word  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us     .     .     . 
full  of  grace  and  truth"  (John  i.  14). 

162 


The  Citadel — Christ 

It  is  in  vain  that  criticism  tries  to  eliminate 

THESE   SUPERNATURAL   TRAITS 

from  the  portrait  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels.  The  parts  of 
Christ's  history  and  teaching  which  the  critics  accept 
stand  in  inseparable  relation  with  the  parts  which  they 
reject,  in  the  unity  of  a  picture  so  superhuman,  so 
original,  so  perfect,  that  the  idea  of  its  creation  by 
irresponsible  legendmongers  of  the  second  or  third 
Christian  generation  may  be  put  out  of  court  as  an 
impossibility.  Only  the  most  arbitrary  manipulation, 
e.g.,  can  expunge  from  the  Gospels  the  lofty  Messianic 
claims,  and  the  eschatological  discourses  and  utterances 
in  which  Jesus  predicts  His  return  in  glory  to  judge  the 
world.*  He  is  not,  like  others,  a  simple  member  of  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  but  Himself  the  Founder  of  the  King- 
dom, and  King  and  Lord  over  it.  He  alone  mediates  to 
men  the  knowledge  of  the  Father.  They  are  "  sons  of 
God  "  by  admission  into  the  Kingdom  ;  he  is  "  the  Son," 
distinct  and  unique  in  His  relation  to  the  Father. 
Others  are  exhorted  to  "faith";  the  term  "faith," 
or  cognate  terms,  are  never  once  applied  to  Jesus 
in  the  Gospels.  He  knows  the  Father :  His  relation 
is  too  intimate,  immediate,  reciprocal  to  be  described 
by  the  weaker  term.  The  difficulty  of  the  critics  is 
to  reconcile  with  these  claims  the  modesty  of  One 
whom,  with  all  Christendom,  they  recognise  as  the 
perfect  pattern  of  meekness,  self-abnegation,  and  suffer- 
ing dignity. 

*The  alleged  failure  of  these  predictions  will  be  remarked  on 
after.  Kaftan  well  shows  that  Christ's  mind  never  wavered  (as  the 
new  writers  represent)  on  His  Messianic  calling.  "  If  anything  in 
His  life  is  historically  certain,  it  is  this,  that  Jesus,  from  beginning  to 
end,  reckoned  with  unshaken  confidence  on  the  vindication  of  His 
Messiahship  by  the  Father"  (p.  21). 

163 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 
v. 

What  more  is  to  be  said  on  this  subject  must  be 
reserved  till  we  come  to  the  discussion  of  the  Gospels 
themselves.  Meanwhile,  I  would  only  point  out  that,  for 
such  an  One,  even  as  the  first  three  Gospels  depict  Him, 
there  is  no  incongruity,  but 

THE    DIVINEST   FITNESS, 

alike  in  the  manner  of  His  entering  the  world,  by  a 
supernatural  birth,  and  in  the  manner  of  His  exit  from 
it,  by  resurrection  and  ascension.  I  may  close  this  paper 
accordingly  by  a  few  words  on  these  cardinal  points — the 
Virgin-birth  of  Christ  and  the  Resurrection. 

In  recent  years  there  has  been  an  almost  virulent 
assault  upon  the  narratives  in  Matthew  and  Luke  of 

THE    VIRGIN-BIRTH 

of  Jesus  ;  and,  led  away  by  plausible  reasonings,  too  many 
have  been  induced  to  surrender  these  narratives  as 
legendary,  or  lightly  to  admit  that  belief  in  this  article  is 
unessential  to  faith  in  Christ  as  the  Incarnate  Word. 
The  alleged  discrepancies  in  the  narratives  are  paraded, 
but  special  stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  that  the  story  of 
the  Nativity  is  not  found  in  Mark  (the  oldest  Gospel)  or 
in  John  ;  was,  apparently,  not  known  to  Paul,  or  other 
writers  in  the  New  Testament ;  was  not  known  in  the 
early  Church,  &c.  But  a  great  deal  more  is  here  asserted 
than  anyone  can  ever  prove.  On  the  historical  point,  it 
may  be  sufficient  to  say  that,  apart  from  the  Jewish 
Ebionites,  and  certain  of  the  Gnostic  sects,  no  body  of 
Christians  is  ever  known  to  have  existed  which  did  not 
receive  as  part  of  their  faith  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  the 
Virgin.  It  is  a  curious  irony  which  makes  the  narrowest 
and   most    retrograde    of   Jewish   Christian    sects    (the 

164 


The  Citadel — Christ 

Nazarenes,  or  more  tolerant  party,  accepted  the  belief) 
the  true  representatives  of  Apostolic  Christianity. 
As  respects  the 

WITNESS   OF   THE   NEW   TESTAMENT, 

the  facts  about  the  Gospels  are  not  correctly  stated.  It 
is  true  that  Mark — who  commences  his  Gospel,  however, 
with  the  words,  "The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God  " — has  not  this  narrative,  but  then 
he  has  nothing  to  say  of  the  infancy  and  early  life  of  Jesus 
at  all — is  therefore  not  a  witness,  either  yea  or  nay.  John, 
similarly,  does  not  narrate  the  earthly  birth  of  Jesus,  but 
contents  himself  with  the  heavenly  descent.  "  The  Word 
became  flesh,"  he  declares ;  how  he  does  not  tell.  But 
surely  the  very  assertion  of  so  transcendent  a  fact  is  in 
itself  in  keeping  with  what  is  narrated  in  the  other 
Gospels. 

John  had  unquestionably  the  other  Gospels  in  his 
hands,  and  there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  meant  to  contradict  them.  The  silence  of  these 
two  Gospels,  therefore,  proves  nothing.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  have  the  fact  that  the  two  Gospels  which  do 
narrate  the  birth  of  Jesus  declare  him  to  have  been,  in 
the  words  of  the  Creed,  "conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  Paul's  silence,  again,  is  not 
wonderful,  if  we  remember  that  it  was  not  Paul's  habit  to 
relate  the  facts  of  Christ's  life.  It  is  Paul's  companion, 
Luke,  nevertheless,  who  gives  one  of  the  narratives  of  the 
miraculous  birth,  and  Paul  can  hardly  be  supposed 
ignorant  of  what  Luke  knew.  Has  Paul,  moreover, 
nothing  supernatural  in  view  when  he  speaks  of  "  the 
second  man  from  heaven  "  (i  Cor.  xv.  47),  and  of  Jesus 
as  "born  of  a  woman,  born  under  the  law  "  (Gal.  iv.  4)?* 

•Literally  "made"  or  "become"  of  a  woman;  not  as  in 
Matt,  xi,  11. 

165 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

There' were  obvious  reasons  why  much  should  not  be  said 
publicly  on  this  subject  while  Mary  lived. 

THE   BEARINGS   ON   CHRISTIAN    FAITH 

of  this  miracle  of  Christ's  entrance  into  the  world  will 
be  belittled  by  no  one  who  reflects  clearly  on  what 
Incarnation  means.  Miracle  is  probably  involved,  in  part 
even  on  the  physical  side,  in  the  creation  of  a  sinless 
personality.  It  is  certainly  involved  in  the  entrance  of 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  into  union  with  our  humanity. 
This  may  not  prove,  indeed,  that  precisely  this  mode  of 
miraculous  entrance  by  birth  from  a  Virgin  was  necessary. 
But,  if  the  general  fact  of  miracle  in  Christ's  birth  is 
admitted,  there  will  not  be  usually  much  stumbling  at  the 
Gospel  narratives.* 
That  Christ  was 

NOT   HOLDEN    BY   DEATH, 

but  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day,  is  the  belief  on 
which,  by  universal  admission,  the  Christian  Church 
from  its  first  beginnings,  reposed.  The  fact  is  certain 
that,  within  a  few  weeks  of  their  Lord's  crucifixion  and 
burial,  the  first  Apostles  were  energetically  proclaiming 
that  Jesus  was  risen  from  the  dead  in  the  streets  of  the 
very  city  where  He  had  been  crucified.  It  was  in  no 
weak  and  credulous  spirit  that  this  fact  was  accepted. 
Paul  writes  on  the  subject  with  the  fullest  sense  of  respon- 
sibility (i  Cor.  xv.  15),  and  gives  his  evidence  in  detail 
(v.  4-8).  The  Gospels  fill  out  the  story  with  circumstantial 
narratives,  which  must  have  emanated  from  the  first  circle 
of  disciples,  and  which,  despite  a  few  difficulties  in  har- 
mony, very  natural  in  the  circumstances,!  vibrate  with 
the    consciousness   of  truth.      Pentecost  follows    Easter 

*I  have  discussed  this  subject  with  some  fulness  in  a  paper  on  "  The 
Miraculous  Conception  "  in  my  volume  on  Ritschlianistn, 
tOn  these  see  later,  pp.  279-81. 

166 


The  Citadel — Christ 

(Acts  ii.)  and  confirms  and  ratifies  its  message.  The 
doctrinal  bearings  of  the  resurrection  are  manifoldly 
elucidated.  By  it  the  seal  was  placed  on  Christ's  whole 
work  and  claims  ;  through  it  He  became  the  first  fruits  of 
them  that  slept  (i  Cor.  xv.  20) ;  in  it  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion is  completed,  with  inclusion  of  the  body  (Rom.  viii. 
23),  and  a  sure  hope  of  immortality  is  opened  to  the  world 
(2  Tim.  i.  10 ;  1  Pet.  i.  3). 

Against  this  great  corner-stone  of  Christain  faith  and 
hope  the  waves  of  scepticism  have  ever  beat  in  vain. 

THEORY  AFTER  THEORY 

has  been  invented  to  explain  it — imposture  theories, 
swoon  theories,  vision  theories,  spiritualistic  appearances 
— but  each  effectually  refutes  the  others  ;  and  the  empty 
grave  and  manifestations  of  the  Risen  One  remain  as 
inexplicable  as  ever.  The  newest  hypothesis  I  have  seen, 
that  of  Oscar  Holtzmann,  in  his  recent  Lift  oj  Jesus  is,  I 
confess,  a  novelty.  It  is,  in  brief,  that  Joseph  of  Arima- 
thsea,  in  whose  new  tomb  Jesus  was  laid,  not  liking  the 
idea  of  a  crucified  malefactor  reposing  in  his  honourable 
family  fault,  had  the  body  secretly  removed  !  Hence  the 
empty  tomb  and  the  belief  of  the  disciples  that  Christ  had 
risen  !  Could  anything,  one  may  ask,  be  more  exquisitely 
wooden  than  this  suggested  solution  of  the  mystery  of 
faith  on  which  the  Christian  Church  is  built  ? 

The  outcome  of  the  whole  is  that  naturalism  does  not 
hold  in  its  hands  the  answer  to  the  question — Who  is 
Christ  ?  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Epistles  still 
lives  and  rules. 


167 


VIII 

The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 


The  Bulwark   of 
the  Gospels 


AS  mentioned  in  last  paper,  the  attack  on  the 
supernatural  claims  of  Christ  is  conducted  in 
part  through  an  unsparing  criticism  of  the 
Gospels.  The  Gospels  are,  besides,  an  offence  in 
themselves  through  the  miraculous  elements  they 
contain.  Every  means  known  to  criticism,  there- 
fore, is  employed  to  weaken  their  testimony.  The 
Gospel  of  John  is  treated  as  a  historical  romance ; 
the  first  three  Gospels  are  discredited  by  separating 
them  from  their  recognised  authors,  and  by  an 
account  of  their  origin,  relations,  and  dependence 
on  late  and  unreliable  tradition,  which  undermines 
all  certainty  in  regard  to  them.  Yet  it  is  precisely 
here,  I  believe,  that  the  attempts  at  an  anti-super- 
naturalistic  construction  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  of 
the  beginnings  of  Christianity,  can  be  most  successfully 
beaten  off.     The  Gospels  stand  as 

A   FOURSQUARE   BULWARK 

upon  which  assault  will  be  found  to  be  in  vain  against 
all  such  endeavours. 

Many  are  of  a  very  different  opinion.     They  see  the 
work  of  historical  disintegration  being  actively  pursued, 

171 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

and  appear  to  take  it  for  granted  that  the  task  is  already 
finished,  and  that  only  inveterate  prejudice  can  prevent 
anyone  from  acknowledging  that  the  credit  of  the  Gospels 
is  hopelessly  destroyed.  This  is  a  great  illusion.  I  have 
already  pointed  out  how,  along  with  these  disintegrating 
forces,  other  influences  not  less  powerful  are  at 
work,  tending  to  re-establish  confidence  in  the  trust- 
worthiness of  our  records.  I  illustrated  the  com- 
plete breakdown  of  the  older  Tubingen  theory  of 
the  Gospels  and  other  New  Testament  writings.  Yet 
more  recently  there  has  come  aid  from  unexpected 
quarters  in 

RESTORING   THE   CREDIT   OF   ANCIENT  TRADITION. 

It  is  ten  years  since  Harnack  declared  in  the 
preface  to  his  work  on  Old  Christian  Literature  that 
(I  quote  from  Dr.  Sanday)  "  the  results  might  be 
summed  up  by  saying  that  the  oldest  literature  of 
the  Church,  in  its  main  points  and  in  most  of  its 
details,  from  the  point  of  view  of  literary  history, 
was  veracious  and  trustworthy."*  In  his  recent 
book  on  Luke  the  Physician,  Harnack  reaffirms  this 
opinion  even  more  strongly.  That  book  is  itself  a 
masterly  vindication,  in  opposition  to  current  tendencies, 
of  the  Lucan  authorship  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the 
Acts.  The  Gospel  of  John  had  been  most  uncom- 
promisingly assailed,  when  suddenly,  as  Dr.  Sanday  says, 

THE   AIR   WAS   CLEARED 

by  the  publication  of  Dr.  Drummond's  The  Character 
and  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  a  convincing 
defence  of  its  genuineness,  which,  as  coming  from  a 
Unitarian,  could  not  be  ascribed  to  theological  bias. 
With    Dr.    Drummond's    treatise  has  to   be   taken    Dr. 

*  Cf .  Sanday's  Criticism  oj  the  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  42. 

172 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

Stanton's  valuable  work,  The  Gospels  as  Historical 
Documents  (Pt.  I.),  and  Dr.  Sanday's  own  important 
volume,  The  Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel*  The 
remarkable  thing  in  these  and  other  works  which  have 
recently  appeared  is,  in  my  opinion,  not  simply  the 
evidence  they  afford  of  a  change  in  the  trend  of  critical 
judgment,  but  the  trenchant  way  in  which  they  assail  the 
methods  and  principles  by  which,  in  the  later  periods, 
critical  results  have  been  reached,  t 


I. 

It  is  not  possible,  in  a  brief  paper,  to  enter  with  any 
minuteness  into  the  complicated  questions  connected  with 
the  authorship  and  relations  of  the  Gospels,  but  a  few 
outlines  may  be  traced,  and  some  facts  brought  forward, 
which  may  help  to  show 

THE   STRENGTH   OF  THE   EVIDENCE 

by  which  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels  is  supported.  A 
little  may  be  said  first  on  the  general  nature  of  the 
evidence,  and  on  the  principles  which  should  guide  us 
in  judging  of  it. 

The  manuscript  evidence  for  the  Gospels  is,  in 
comparison  with  that,  say,  for  the  classics,  early  and 
extraordinarily  abundant.  The  existence  of  an  ancient 
book,  however,  may  be  proved  in  many  other  ways  than 
by  the  possession  of  actual  manuscripts  of  it.  The 
existence  of  a  book  may  be  proved  by  references  to  it, 

*An  interesting  defence  of  John's  Authorship,  by  Prof. 
Peake,  appears  in  an  article  on  "  The  Fourth  Gospel,"  in  the 
London  Quarterly  Review,  October,  1905. 

t  Dr.  Sanday  comments  on  this  feature  in  Dr.  Drummond's 
work,  and  his  own  book  is  a  trenchant  criticism  of  current 
methods.  I  showed  before  that  the  same  is  true  of  recent  works 
by  Harnack,  Kaftan,  &c. 

173 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

quotations  from  it,  or  accounts  of  it ;  by  catalogues, 
by  early  translations  or  versions,  by  controversies 
in  which  its  principles  are  discussed.  A  very  little 
evidence,  if  we  are  satisfied  of  its  genuineness,  is  often 
sufficient  to  carry  us  a  long  way. 

AN    ILLUSTRATION 

\s  may  set  this  in  a  clearer  light.  In  Macaulay's  Essay  on 
the  authoress  Madame  D'Arblay,  who  died  in  1840,  we 
have  the  following  sentences  : — "  The  news  of  her  death 
carried  the  minds  of  men  back  at  one  leap  over  two 
generations  to  the  time  when  her  first  literary  triumphs 
were  won.  .  .  .  Since  the  appearance  of  her  first 
work  sixty-two  years  had  passed,  and  this  interval  had 
been  crowded  not  only  with  political  but  also  with 
intellectual  revolutions."  We  are  further  informed 
that  this  first  work  was  called  Evelina,  and  was 
published  in  1778. 

Now  few,  probably,  of  the  readers  of  these  pages  have 
ever  heard  before  of  Madame  d'Arblay,  and  still  fewer, 
I  am  sure,  have  either  seen  or  read  the  book  referred  to. 
Yet  no  one,  I  think,  would  dream  of  doubting  that  this 
single  reference  in  Lord  Macaulay  is  amply  sufficient 
evidence  that  such  a  book,  bearing  the  name  of  Evelinft, 
existed,  that  Madame  D'Arblay,  then  Frances  Burney, 
was  the  author  of  it,  and  that  it  was  published  in  or  about 
1778,  now  over  a  century  and  a-quarter  ago.  Thus  one 
step  takes  us  back  over  that  long  interval ;  and  we  would 
accept  with  equal  confidence  Macaulay's  testimony  to  a 
book  of  the  time  of  the  Puritans,  or  of  the  Reformation, 
or  to  a  work  of  poetry  or  theology  from  even  earlier 
centuries. 

In  fact,  we  seek,  as  a  rule,  no  better  proof  of  the  gen- 
uineness of  a   work   than  the    fact   that    it   is,  and  has 

174 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

ALWAYS   BEEN   RECEIVED 

as  a  genuine  work  of  the  author  to  whom  it  is 
ascribed.  Few  persons  doubt  that  the  poems  ascribed 
to  Robert  Burns  are  really  his,  or  that  Bunyan  wrote 
The  Pilgrim's  Progress,  or  that  Charles  Wesley  composed 
the  hymns  that  bear  his  name  ;  yet  the  chief  ground 
which  most  of  us  have  for  these  beliefs  is  that  the  works 
in  question  now  are,  and  we  understand,  universally  have 
been,  attributed  to  the  authors  concerned,  with  the  impossi- 
bility of  supposing  that  they  could  have  been  published  and 
circulated,  and  have  obtained  this  undisputed  acceptance 
without  the  mistake,  or  fraud,  being  at  the  time,  or  soon 
after,  detected  and  exposed.  These  are  the  ordinary  princi- 
ples we  apply  in  judging  of  books,  and  it  is  only  by  bearing 
them  in  mind  that  we  can  fairly  judge  of  the  exceptional 
strength  of  the  evidence  which  supports  the  four  Gospels. 
Applying,  then,  this  test  of  general  reception,  let  the 
reader  take  his  stand  for  a  moment  in  the 

LAST  QUARTER  OF  THE  SECOND  CENTURY 

— an  interval  from  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
Gospels  shorter  than  from  the  publication  of  Madame 
D'Arblay's  book  to  our  own  day.  Plenty  of  literature 
has  come  down  to  us  from  that  period,  and,  in  the  clear 
light  it  casts  on  the  conditions  of  the  time,  what  do  we 
find  ?  The  four  Gospels — the  four  we  have — and  none 
else,  in  universal  circulation  and  undisputed  use  through- 
out the  Church,  unanimously  ascribed  to  the  authors 
whose  names  they  bear,*  circulating  not  only  in  their 
original  tongues,  but  in  Latin,  Syriac,t  and  other  trans- 
There  is  a  slight  exception  in  the  obscure  sect  of  the  Alogi, 
who  rejected  the  Fourth  Gospel  on  dogmatic  grounds. 

t  On  these  early  versions  we  see  Westcott  and  Hort's  New 
Testament,  Introduction,  pp.  78  ff.  It  is  a  question  recently 
raised  whether  Tatian's  (Syriac)  Harmony  (r.  170)  is  not  the 
oldest  Syriac  version. 

175 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

lations,-  freely  used,  not  only  by  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
but  by  pagans  and  heretics,  and  by  these  also  ascribed 
to  the  disciples  of  Christ  as  their  authors.  We  find 
harmonies  made  of  them,*  commentaries  written  on  them, 
and  catalogues  of  books  drawn  up,  in  which  they  stand 
at  the  head ;  and  all  this,  with  just  as  little  doubt,  or 
trace  of  dissent,  as  in  the  case  of  the  works  above  named 
among  ourselves,  t 

II. 
I  take  a  few  examples*    The 

MOST  REPRESENTATIVE  NAMES 

in  the  Church  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
are  those  of  Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  Gaul,  Tertullian, 
of  Carthage,  and  Clement,  head  of  the  Catechetical 
School  in  Alexandria,  whom  Origen  succeeded  a  little 
later  (203  a.d.).  It  is  said  that  from  the  works  of  Origen 
alone  the  New  Testament,  if  lost,  could  nearly  be  recon- 
structed. But  Origen,  with  all  the  others  named,  bears 
emphatic  testimony  to  the  universal  acceptance,  sole 
authority,  and  undisputed  authorship  of  the  four  Gospels 
with  which  we  are  familiar.  The  testimony  of  such  as 
Irenaeus  is  peculiarly  valuable,  in  that  he  not  only  conveys 
to  us  the  witness  of  the  Church  of  his  own  day,  but 
himself  stood  in  a  line  of  succession  which  reached  back 

*Tatian  (see  below)  and  one  ascribed  to  Theophilus  by  Jerome. 
(Westcott,  Canon,  p.  208). 

t  "  I  would  invite  attention,"  says  Dr.  Sanday,  "  to  the  distribution 
of  the  evidence  in  this  period  :  Irenaeus  and  the  Letter  of  the 
Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  Gaul,  Heracleon  in  Italy, 
Tertullian  at  Carthage,  Polycrates  at  Ephesus,  Theophilus  in 
Antioch,  Tatian  at  Rome  and  in  Syria,  Clement  at  Alexandria. 
The  strategical  positions  are  occupied,  one  might  say,  all  over  the 
Empire.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  there  is  not  a  hint  of  dissent. 
On  the  contrary,  the  fourfold  Gospel  is  regarded  for  the  most  part 
as  one  and  indivisible  "  {Fourth  Gospel,  p.  238). 

176 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

to  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles.  Irenaeus  was  brought  up 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  as  a  youth  sat  at  the  feet  of  Polycarp, 
the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John  ;  in  later  life,  having 
gone  to  Gaul,  he  became  Bishop  of  Lyons  in  succession 
to  Pothinus,  an  old  man,  whose  life  must  have  stretched 
back  into  the  first  century,  before  the  Apostle  John  died. 
To  the  end  of  his  life  Irenaeus  retained  vivid  recollections 
of  the 

DISCOURSES    OF   POLYCARP, 

"  and  how  he  would  describe  his  intercourse  with  John 
and  with  the  rest  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he 
would  relate  their  words.  And  whatsoever  things  he  had 
heard  from  them  about  the  Lord  and  about  His  miracles, 
and  about  His  teaching,  Polycarp,  as  having  received 
them  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  the  Word,  would 
relate  them,  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures."* 

Is  it  conceivable  that  a  man  of  this  kind  could  have 
been  deceived  about  the  Gospel  of  John,  of  which  his 
master,  Polycarp,  must  have  been  able  to  tell  him  some- 
thing, and  the  genuineness  of  which  he  himself  unhesi- 
tatingly endorses  ? 

Leaving  aside  the  testimony  of  lists  and  versions,  I  take 
an  older  instance.  Early  Christian  writers  inform  us  that 
Tatian,  the  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  wrote  a  work  called 

THE   "  DIATESSARON," 

— a  "combination  of  four" — and  that  this  work, 
extant   in    their    time,   was   a    Harmony    of  the    Four 

*This  in  a  letter  to  a  fellow-disciple  of  Polycarp,  Florinus,  who 
had  lapsed  into  Gnosticism.  Referring  to  the  vain  efforts  of  critics 
to  get  rid  of  this  testimony,  Dr.  Drummond  says  : — "  Critics  speak 
of  Irenaeus  as  though  he  had  fallen  out  of  the  moon,  paid  two  or 
three  visits  to  Polycarp's  lecture-room,  and  had  never  known  anyone 
else.  In  fact,  he  must  have  known  all  sorts  of  men,  of  all  ages, 
both  in  the  East  and  the  West."— p.  348. 

177  N 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Gospels.  The  date  of  this  work  may  have  been  about 
170  a.d.  It  was  pretty  obvious  that  if  a  writer  of  that 
date  was  engaged  in  making  a  Harmony  of  the  Four 
Gospels,  these  must  already  have  had  a  long  established 
position  and  authority  in  the  Church,  and  this  was  fatal 
to  the  theory  of  their  late  origin  and  unauthoritative 
character.  Every  attempt,  therefore,  was  made  to  shake 
the  force  of  this  evidence  from  Tatian.  It  was  attempted 
to  be  shown — as  by  the  author  of  Supernatural  Religion — 
that  no  such  book  existed  ;  or,  if  it  did,  that  it  was  not  a 
Harmony  of  the  Gospels  ;  or,  if  it  was  a  Harmony,  it 
was  not  of  our  Four.  This  was  held,  though  ancient 
writers  testified  that  a  well-known  personage,  Ephraem 
the  Syrian,  had  written  a  commentary  on  the  work. 
Thus  the  question  stood,  till,  in  1876,  a  Latin  trans- 
lation of  an  Armenian  version  of  the  Commentary  of 
Ephraem  was  published  ;  and  in  1888  an  Arabic  trans- 
lation of  the  Diatessaron  itself  was  brought  to  light.  Then 
it  was  found,  what  should  never  really  have  been 
doubted,  that  the  famous  Diatessaron  was,  after  all, 
a  blending  of  our  four  Canonical  Gospels. 

Tatian  is  likewise  a  witness  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  in 
his  earlier  work,  An  Address  to  the  Greeks  (c.  150  a.d.). 

Tatian's  master  was 

JUSTIN    MARTYR, 

one  of  the  most  important  witnesses  in  the  middle  of  the 
century.  The  works  of  this  early  writer  embody  in 
large  part  the  history  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  and 
show  acquaintance  with  the  Gospel  of  John  in  numerous 
passages,  as,  notably,  the  following  : — "  For  Christ  also 
said,  Unless  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven.  But  that  it  is  impossible  for  those 
who  are  once  born  to  enter  into  the  wombs  of  those  who 

178 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

brought  them  forth  is  evident  to  all."*  The  quota- 
tion is  free,  but  one  cannot  mistake  the  reference  to 
John  iii.  5-8.  Nor  does  Justin  leave  us  in  any  doubt 
as  to  the  sources  of  his  information.  He  tells  us  that  he 
draws  from  "Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  "which  are 
called  Gospels,"  "composed  by  the  Apostles  and  those 
that  followed  them."  In  them  he  found  written  "  all 
things  concerning  Jesus  Christ."  These  "  Memoirs  " 
were  read,  together  with  the  writing  of  the  prophets,  in 
the  weekly  meetings  of  the  Christians,  t  Is  it  possible 
to  doubt  that  these  are  the  same  "  Gospels "  which 
Tatian  combined  in  his  Harmony  ?  But  here  they  are 
already  found  in  settled  ecclesiastical  use. 
I  need  only  cite  one  other  witness, 

PAPIAS   OF    HIERAPOLIS, 

— the  first  who  mentions  Matthew  and  Mark  by  name. 
His  date  may  be  120-130  a.d.,  but  Dr.  Sanday  is 
disposed  to  carry  back  the  extracts  preserved  from  him 
to  about  100  a.d.  t  This  would  give  them  high  authority 
indeed.  That  Papias  knew  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
rendered  almost  certain  by  his  attested  use  of  the  first 
Epistle  of  John,  but  the  extracts  now  in  question 
(preserved  by  Eusebius)  relate  to  the  first  and  second 
Gospels.  Papias  had  been  on  terms  of  intimacy  with 
the  immediate  followers  of  the  Apostles,  possibly  with 
John  himself,§  and  his  object  in  the  work  from  which 
the  extracts  are  taken  was  to  set  down  faithfully,  along 

*ist  Apol.  61. — Justin's  allusions  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  are 
well  set  out  in  Dr.  Stanton's  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents, 
pp.  81,  ff.  The  above  quotation  is  challenged  by  the  critics, 
but  is  vigorously  defended  by  Dr.  Drummond. 

t  Cf.     1st  Apol.  66-67  :  Dialogue  with  7'rypho,  io,  loo,  103. 

%  Fourth  Gospel,  p.  251. 

§  I  need  not  touch  here  on  the  disputed  questions  about  "  the 
Elder  John." 

179 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

with  his  own  interpretations,  what  he  had  learnt 
from  the  elders  and  those  acquainted  with  them. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  further  that  what  Eusebius 
quotes  from  Papias  about  Matthew  and  Mark  he 
takes  to  refer  to  our  present  Gospels.  That,  indeed, 
is  plain  on  the  face  of  it  about  Mark.  There  is  a 
certain  difficulty,  as  we  shall  immediately  see,  about 
Matthew,  but,  as  Eusebius  had  the  work  of  Papias 
before  him,  the  presumption  is  that  he  was  right  in 
his  understanding  about  the  first  Gospel  also. 
The  testimonies  about 

MATTHEW  AND    MARK, 

then,  in  brief,  are,  as  respects  Matthew,  that  he 
"  composed  the  Oracles  (Logia)  in  Hebrew,  and  each 
one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able " ;  and,  con- 
cerning Mark,  that  "  Mark,  having  become  the 
interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  accurately  all  that  he 
remembered,  though  he  did  not  record  in  order  that 
which  was  either  said  or  done  by  Christ."*  By 
"  Hebrew "  in  the  first  passage,  is  to  be  understood 
11  Aramaic."  Both  of  the  statements  here  made, 
that  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Aramaic,  and 
that  Mark  wrote  as  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of 
Peter,  appear  in  all  the  subsequent  tradition.  Yet 
there  is  the  diffici.lty  that  the  only  Gospel  of  Matthew 
we  know  t — the  only  one  also  in  the  hands  of  these 
Fathers — is  in  Greek,  and  bears  no  marks  of  being  a 
translation.  We  have,  accordingly,  the  two  facts  to 
face :  first,  that  Matthew  is  said  to  have  written  his 
Gospel  in  Aramaic,  and,  second,  that  our  Greek  Gospel 

♦Eusebius,  Ecc.  Hist.,  III.  39. 

+  There  is  no  ground  for  the  supposition  that  the  Jewish- 
Christian  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  was  the  original  of  our  Matthew. 
It  is,  on  the  other  hand,  derived  from  it. 

180 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

is  held  by  all  the  early  writers  to  be  virtually  identical 
with  this  Aramaic  work  of  Matthew.  How  this  is  to  be 
cleared  up  will  be  considered  after.  The  other  state- 
ment, as  to  the  origin  of  Mark,  has  every  right  to 
credence.     Mark  is,  in  substance,  Peter's  Gospel. 

These  are  voices  from  within  the  Church,  but  it  is  not 
different  when  we  pass 

OUTSIDE   THE   CHURCH. 

Celsus,  e.g.,  was  a  bitter  opponent  of  Christianity,  but 
he  calls  our  Gospels  "  the  writings  of  the  disciples  of 
Christ,"  and  urges  against  them  the  usual  charges  of 
contradiction  and  absurdity.  Marcion,  a  Gnostic,  earlier 
than  Justin  Martyr,  used  what  all  now  acknowledge  to 
be  a  mutilated  version  of  Luke.  The  Ebionites,  in  like 
manner,  used  a  mutilated  version  of  Matthew.  The 
Gnostics  were  specially  fond  of  John,  and  one  of  them 
wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Gospel.  I  spoke  in  an  earlier 
paper  of  the  use  of  John's  Gospel  by  Basilides.*  (c.  125). 
I  need  not  pursue  this  branch  of  the  evidence 
further,  for,  as  regards  dates,  it  is  now  admitted  by  all 
but  extreme  writers  that  our  first  three  Gospels  (the 
"  Synoptics  "),  at  any  rate,  fall  well  within 

THE  LIMITS  OF  THE   APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

Harnack,  e.g.,  whose  dates  are  probably  still  too 
late,  puts  Mark's  Gospel  between  65  and  70  a.d., 
Matthew's  between  70  and  75,  Luke's  between  78 
and  93.  Blass,  representing  a  yet  further  return  to 
tradition,  puts  the  composition  of  Luke's  Gospel  in 
59  or  60. t  Even  as  regards  authorship  we  have 
found  that  Mark,  Luke,  and  John  are  now  being  re- 
stored   to    their    accredited    authors,    and   Matthew   is 

*  Ut  supra,  p.  36.      Dr.  Drummond  contends  for  the  natural  view 
that  Basilides  himself  is  quoted  as  using  the  Gospel. 

t  Philology  of  tht  Gospels,  p.  35. 

181 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

allowed  a  substantial  (if  still  insufficient)  share  in  the 
composition  of  the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name.  These 
are  long  strides  towards  the  corroboration  of  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church  which  Prof.  Foster,  while  rejecting  it, 
thus  correctly  represents :  "  According  to  tradition,  two 
Gospels  are  by  Matthew  and  John,  who  were  Apostles  ; 
two  others,  by  disciples  and  companions  of  Apostles — 
Mark,  the  companion  of  Peter,  Luke  of  Paul."* 

III. 

Thus  far  I  have  been  dealing  with  external  evidence. 
On  that  side  I  believe  that  the  case  for  the  Gospels  is 
irrefragable.  Even  of  the  Gospel  of  John — the  most  con- 
tested of  the  four — Dr.  Drummond  permits  himself  to 
say  at  the  conclusion  of  his  inquiry:  "The  external 
evidence  (be  it  said  with  due  respect  for  the  Alogi)  is  all 
on  one  side"  (p.  514). 

Now  the  question  arises — Does 

INTERNAL    CRITICISM 

confirm  or  overthrow  these  results  ?  Truth  being  one, 
it  would  be  strange  if  it  did  the  latter.  Yet,  if  we  take  up 
the  books  of  any  of  our  critics  of  the  newer  school — of  a 
Schmiedel,  a  Wernle,  a  Foster,  a  Schmidt — we  find  that 
nothing  less  than  this  is  their  contention.  The  external 
evidence,  in  their  view,  has  hardly  the  weight  of  a  feather. 
The  books  themselves  must  be  critically  examined  ;  and 
when  that  is  done,  their  credit  is  gone.  The  supposition 
that  John  is  the  work  of  an  Apostle,  or  has  any  historical 
worth,  is  not  to  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  The  Synop- 
tic tradition  is  put  into  the  crucible,  and  is  found  to  be,  in 
part  gold,  but  largely  also  base  alloy.  Subjective  weights 
and  measures  are  employed  to  determine  what  is  true  and 
*  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion^  p.  335. 

182 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

what  false.  Unfortunately,  there  is  little  real  agree- 
ment in  the  results,  and  one  fails  often  to  see  why  any- 
thing should  be  left  at  all. 

A   FEW   SPECIMENS, 

taken  almost  haphazard,  may  illustrate. 

Here  is  Bousset.*  "  That  Jesus  was  directly  indicated 
by  John  as  Messiah,  as  the  Christian  tradition  has  it,  we  do 
not  believe"  (p.  7).  "What  was  Jesus'  object  in  collecting 
His  band  of  disciples  ?  Not,  at  any  rate,  to  found  a  com- 
munity or  church  "  (p.  60).  "  The  stereotyped  way  in 
which  the  Synoptics  represent  Jesus  as  using  the  title 
1  Son  of  Man  '  is  not  historical.  There  speaks,  not  the 
earthly  Jesus,  but  the  dogmatic  conviction  of  His  followers" 
(P-  I93)  "  Above  all,  He  did  not  lay  claim  to  the  judge- 
ship of  the  world.  ...  It  is  true  that  in  the  narra- 
tives of  our  Gospels  the  opposite  seems  to  be  the  case. 
But  it  is  inconceivable  that  Jesus  .  .  .  should  now 
have  arrogated  to  Himself  the  judgeship  of  the  world  in 
place  of  God"  (p.  203). 

Foster,  who  closely  follows  Wernle,  is  ever  on  the  track 
for  motive.  "  Mark  had  done  much  to  parry  this  thrust, 
yet  much  too  little  to  suit  those  who  came  after  him. 
.  .  .  Luke  cancels  the  mortal  distress  of  Jesus  in 
Gethsemane.  Matthew  removes  every  appearance  of 
helplessness  ;  legions  of  angels  were  at  his  disposal  " 
(p.  354).  "  At  the  beginning  of  the  discourse  on  right- 
eousness, on  missions,  on  Pharisees,  there  are  harsh 
national  Jewish  sentiments  ;  Jesus,  the  fulfiller  of  the  law 
even  to  jot  and  tittle,  &c.  .  .  .  In  these  utterances  an 
exclusively  Jewish  party  inimically  disposed  towards 
Paul  and  his  work  claims  Jesus  "  (p.  378)  !  "  The  closing 
words  concerning  the  last  judgment  do  not  come  directly 
from  Jesus.  Jesus  did  not  consider  Himself  as  the  Judge 
*In  his  aforenamed  book  on  Jesus, 

183 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

of  the  world,  nor  would  He  have  said  that  all  the  Gentiles 
were  judged  solely  according  to  whether  they  supported 
the  itinerant  Christian  brothers  or  not"  (p.  381).  The  word 
to  Peter,  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  &c,  is  not  Christ's,  but  "  is  a 
saga  of  a  later  time,  glorifying  Peter  "  (p.  381). 

N.  Schmidt  goes  further,  denying  the  Messiahship,  and 
the  titles"  Son  of  Man,"  "  Son  of  God,  "  altogether.*  The 
passage  in  Matt.  xi.  27 :  "  No  one  knoweth  the 
Son,"  &c,  on  which  Harnack  founds,  is  rejected  by 
this  writer  as  "  a  somewhat  irrelevant  statement  that 
has  the  appearance  of  a  gloss."  "No  other  passage 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  indicates  that  Jesus  made 
the  discovery  that  God  is  a  Father,  or  conceived  of 
His  Fatherhood  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  Him  to 
the  conclusion  that  He  alone  stood  to  God  in  the 
relation  of  a  true  Son  "  (p.  151).  At  Caesarea-Philippi, 
where  Bousset  and  Foster  see  an  avowal  of  Messiah- 
ship,  Schmidt  discerns  a  sharp  rebuke  to  Peter  for 
venturing  to  proclaim  Him  the  Messiah!  "Jesus 
charged  His  disciples  not  to  say  that  He  was  the 
Messiah.  He  did  not  wish  that  men  should  believe 
in  Him  as  the  Messiah,  and  confess  Him  as  such " 
(p.  277). 

Enough,  the  reader  will  probably  say,  of  this 

UPSIDE-DOWN     CRITICISM, 

which  can  make  anything  of  anything,  and  cuts  and 
carves  till  the  Gospels  are  perforce  made  to  speak 
the  language  the  critic  desires  to  hear  from  them. 
It  is  time  to  turn  to  the  real  problems  of  the  relations 
of  the  Gospels  which  arise  from  a  less  prejudiced 
consideration  of  their  contents. 

Have  the   Gospels  any  literary  dependence  on    each 
other?        The     theory    which     finds     acceptance     at 

*In  his  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth. 

184 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

present  is  that  Mark  is  an  original  Gospel,  while  Matthew 
and  Luke  depend  on  Mark,  and  also  on  a  second  source — 
a  collection  of  the  sayings  or  discourses  of  Jesus  {theLogia), 
of  which  the  Apostle  Matthew  was  the  author.  I  cannot 
say  that  I  feel  satisfied  with  this  now  widely  accepted 

"two-source"  theory. 

I  cannot  readily  believe  that  Luke  would  include  an 
important  Gospel  like  Mark's  among  the  attempts 
at  a  narrative  which  his  own  better-ordered  Gospel 
was  to  supersede  (Luke  i.  i)  ;  and,  while  it  is  true 
that  there  is  little  in  Mark's  Gospel  not  found  in  the 
other  two,  it  is  also  the  case  that  the  language  and 
style  of  narration  in  the  latter  are  often  quite 
different.*  The  hypothesis  of  a  Logia  source 
common  to  Matthew  and  Luke  is  likewise  cumbered 
with  great  difficulties.  The  two  Gospels  often  ver- 
bally agree  in  their  reports  of  Christ's  sayings,  but 
in  other  places  the  language  widely  diverges.  It  is 
quite  inexplicable  why  the  same  saying  should  be  so 
differently  reported,  if  taken  from  the  same  document.! 
Besides,  the  tradition  is  that  Matthew  wrote  his  Logia 
in  Aramaic,  while  the  source  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke 
must  be  supposed  to  be  in  Greek. 

Chiefly  I  feel  difficulty  with  the  theory  about 

MATTHEW'S     GOSPEL. 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  supposing  that  the  "  Oracles  " 
(Logia)  which  Matthew  is  attested  to  have  written  were 

*  Cf.  e.g.  Mark  i.  i3  =  Matt.  iv.  i-nj  Mark  i.  14-15  =  Matt. 
iv.  7;  Mark  iii.  1.5  =  Matt,  xii,  10-13  :  Mark  Hi.  24-26  =  Matt.  25-26; 
Mark  iv.  35-41  =  Matt.  viii.  18,  23,  27  ;  Mark  v.  I-20  =  Matt.  viii. 
28-34,  &c. 

t  Cf.  e.g.,  Luke  x.  23,  24  =  Matt.  xiii.  16-17  ;  Luke  xi.  11-13  = 
Matt.  vii.  9-11 ;  Luke  xii.  4-6  =  Matt.  x.  28,  29  ;  Luke  xii.  22-31 
=  Matt.  vi.  25-33  (alike,  yet  inexplicable  variations),  &c. 

185 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

only  a  collection  of  the  Lord's  sayings.  B.  Weiss  and  others 
seem  to  me  to  have  established  that  it  must  have  em- 
braced narrative  matter  as  well.*  If  so,  it  can  hardly 
have  been  other  than  our  present  Gospel,  as  Eusebius  and 
the  other  witnesses  took  it  to  be.  The  statement  of 
Papias  that  Matthew  wrote  in  Hebrew  (Aramaic)  must  in 
that  case  have  arisen,  either  (i)  from  a  confusion  with 
the  related  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  which  Papias  may  have 
mistakenly  thought  to  be  the  original ;  or  (2)  from  some 
tradition  of  an  older  draft  or  sketch  of  the  Gospel  in 
Aramaic,  which  the  later  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew 
afterwards  replaced.  It  is  in  itself  highly  probable  that 
such  notes  would  be  made  by  Matthew  at  an  early  stage; 
and  copies  and  translations  of  these,  and  of  the  teaching 
of  the  other  Apostles,  may,  as  both  Luke  (i.  1)  and  Papias 
hint,  have  been  in  circulation.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
otherwise  so  accurate  and  well-defined  a  circle  of  sayings 
and  narratives  could  have  been  preserved. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  in  further  elucidation  of  this 

COMMON   BASIS 

of  the  first  three  Gospels  :  (1)  that  for  a  considerable 
time  the  Apostles  laboured  together  and  taught  in 
Jerusalem ;  (2)  that  Peter,  as  foremost  spokesman, 
and  an  energetic  personality,  would  naturally  impress 
his  type  upon  the  oral  narratives  of  Christ's  sayings 
and  doings  in  the  primitive  community  (the  Murk 
type)  ;  (3)  that  Matthew's  stores,  in  part  written, 
would  be  the  chief  source  for  the  sayings  and  longer 
discourses ;  (4)  that  the  instruction  imparted  at 
Jerusalem,  or  by  the  Apostles  and  those  taught  by 
*  Schmidt  appears  to  me  to  have  reason  on  his  side  in  his  remarks 
on  this  point,  and  in  his  remarks  on  the  Login  theory  generally 
(pp.  219-220,  227-228).  He  disputes  the  priority  of  Mark,  and  makes 
Matthew  the  oldest  of  the  Gospels,  but,  of  course,  in  its  present  form, 
late  (pp.  223,  227). 

186 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

them  during  visits  to  the  Churches,  would  everywhere 
be  made  the  basis  of  careful  catechetical  teaching  ; 
(5)  that  records  of  all  this,  more  or  less  fragmentary, 
would  be  early  in  circulation.  This  would  readily 
explain  the  Petrine  type  of  the  common  narrative 
tradition,  and  the  seeming  dependence  of  Matthew, 
without  the  necessity  of  supposing  that  one  Gospel 
copied  from  another,  or  drew  from  a  special  Logia 
source. 

This,  also,   it   seems   to  me,   is   precisely  the  process 
suggested  by 

LUKE'S     REMARKABLE     PREFACE 

to  his  Gospel,  which  furnishes,  in  so  interesting  a  way, 
a  glimpse  into  the  mode  of  Gospel  composition  in  that 
early  age.  Luke  is  dealing,  he  tells  us,  with  matters 
which  were  already  "  fully  established  "  among  Christians  ; 
the  knowledge  of  which  had  been  derived  from  "  eye- 
witnesses and  ministers  of  the  Word;"  in  which  Theo- 
philushad  already  been"  catechised;  "  of  which  many  had 
already  "  taken  in  hand  "  to  draw  up  narratives  ;  regarding 
which  the  Evangelist,  as  "  having  traced  the  course  of 
all  things  accurately  from  the  first,"  was  able  to  give 
him  "certainty"  (Luke  i.  1-4).  Could  there  be  a  much 
surer  guarantee  for  the  credibility  of  a  narrative  ?* 

IV. 

We  have  still  to  glance  at  the  most  difficult  of  these 
problems  in  the 

RELATION   OF  JOHN   TO   THE    SYNOPTICS. 

The  slightest  inspection  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  shows  that 
it  is  very  different  in  style  and  character  from  the  former 
*  It  need  not  be  said  that  all  this  which  Luke  tells  us  is  perfectly 
compatible  with  his  feeling  that  he  was  moved  to  do  what  he  did 
by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  with  his  being  conscious  of  the  Spirit's 
guidance  in  his  work. 

187 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

three.  Yet  the  internal  evidence  of  the  Apostle's  author- 
ship is  nearly  as  conclusive  as  the  external.  No  one  can 
read  the  Gospel  fairly  without  perceiving  that  the  author 
claims,  in  numerous  direct  and  indirect  ways,  to  be  an 
eye-witness  of  the  events  which  he  describes  {e.g.,  John  i. 
14  ;  xix.  35  ;  1  John  i.  1-3).  He  lays  emphasis  on  his 
witness,  and  in  an  appendix  to  the  Gospel  the  truthful- 
ness of  his  testimony  is  attested  by  others  (John  xxi.  24). 
He  is  quite  evidently  "  the  disciple,"  "  the  other  disciple," 
the  disciple  "  whom  Jesus  loved  "  (John  xiii.  23  ;  xxi.  20), 
so  often  mentioned  in  the  Gospel,  but  never  named.  The 
simple  fact  that  John's  name  never  once  occurs,  but  that 
he  is  always  referred  to  in  this  periphrastic  manner,  is 
itself  convincing  proof  that  John,  and  no  other,  is  the 
author.  In  one  way  the  very  difference  in  style  between 
the  Fourth  and  the  other  Gospels  is  corroboration  of  this 
conclusion.  John,  according  to  consentient  tradition, 
was  an  aged  man  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel.  He  had  so 
often  retold,  and  so  long  brooded  over,  the  thoughts  and 
words  of  Jesus,  that  they  had  become,  in  a  manner,  part 
of  his  own  thought,  and,  in  reproducing  them,  he  neces- 
sarily did  so  with  a  subjective  tinge,  and  in  a  partially 
paraphrastic  and  interpretative  manner.  Yet  it  is  truly 
the  words,  thoughts,  and  deeds  of  his  beloved  Lord  that 
he  narrates.*  His  reminiscences,  even  of  minute  details 
of  time,  place,  circumstance,  were  vivid  and  accurate,  and 
he  sets  all  down  faithfully  and  carefully. 

Yet  the  differences  between  John  and  his  fellow- 
Evangelists 

*Godet  has  said  :  "  The  discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  then,  do 
not  resemble  a  photograph,  but  the  extracted  essence  of  a  savoury 
fruit.  From  the  change  wrought  in  the  external  form  of  the  sub- 
stance, it  does  not  follow  that  the  slightest  foreign  element  has  been 
mingled  with  the  latter"  (Com.  onjo/m,  Introd.  p.  135,  E.T.)  The  com- 
parison has  often  been  suggested  of  the  reports  of  the  teaching  of 
Socrates  by  Xenophon  and  Plato  respectively. 

188 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

SHOULD    NOT   BE   EXAGGERATED. 

The  statements  made  on  this  subject  by  critics  bent  at 
all  costs  on  destroying  the  credit  of  the  Gospel  are  often 
quite  unwarranted.  John  writes  to  convince  his  readers 
that  Jesus  was  "the  Son  of  God"  (xx.  31),  and  in  his 
prologue  he  declares  that  in  Jesus  the  divine  "  Logos  " 
had  become  incarnate  (i.  1,  14).  But  the  term  "  Logos  " 
is  never  put  into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Himself,  who,  not- 
withstanding His  lofty  claims — and  none  could  be  greater 
— is  pictured  as  living  a  truly  human  life,  hungering, 
thirsting,  being  wearied,  sorrowing,  sympathising,  weep- 
ing, being  troubled  in  soul,  agonising,  dying.  In  none 
of  the  Gospels  does  Jesus  appear  more  tender,  sympa- 
thetic, loving,  and  eager  for  the  salvation  of  men.  Even 
in  the  point  of 

THE   DISCOURSES, 

which  are  apt  to  appear  long  and  controversial  in  com- 
parison with  the  Synoptics,  Dr.  Drummond  has  shown 
by  a  careful  induction  that  this  impression  is  largely  a 
mistaken  one.  The  speeches  in  John  are  not  really 
longer  than  those  in  Matthew,  and  they  abound  in  short, 
concise  sayings,  like  those  in  the  Synoptics.*  It  should 
be  remembered  also  that  a  writer  like  John  uses  the 
"  direct  "  form  of  speech  where  we  would  use  the  "  in- 
direct " — a  fact  which  gives  the  appearance  of  literal 
quotation,  where  sometimes  the  author  is  not  professing 
to  do  more  than  give  the  substance  of  a  remark  or  con- 
versation in  his  own  words. 

^Character  and  Authorship  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  pp.  16-20.  His 
tables,  which  draw  out  the  evidence  in  detail,  should  be  studied. 
Professor  Peake  also  reminds  us  that,  "As  Matthew  Arnold  pointed 
out  long  ago,  when  we  look  into  the  speeches  we  find  a  large  number 
of  sayings  of  the  same  pithy,  aphoristic  character  as  those  contained 
in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  "  {London  Quarterly  Review^  October,  1905, 
p.  283). 

189 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

But  beyond  these  considerations,  which  bear  directly 
on  the  form  of  John's  narratives,  there  are  certain  others 
which  require  to  be  taken  into  account  as  yielding 

THE   RIGHT   PERSPECTIVE 

for  a  just  estimate  of  this  Gospel.  It  is  necessary,  e.g., 
to  remember  :  (i)  How  small  a  part  of  Christ's  ministry 
is  really  covered  by  the  Fourth  Gospel — some  eighteen  or 
twenty  days,  perhaps,  at  most*  ;  (2)  that  the  scenes  in 
this  Gospel  are  mostly  laid  in  Judaea,  under  quite  different 
conditions  from  those  of  the  Galilean  ministry  (John's 
narratives  and  those  of  the  Synoptics,  therefore,  hardly 
ever  intersect.  John  was  acquainted  with  the  other 
Gospels,  and  purposely  refrained  from  reproducing 
matter  already  found  in  them)  ;  (3)  in  the  few  cases  where 
the  narratives  do  intersect — as  in  the  narrative  of  the 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand  (John  vi.  6-13),  and  part  of 
the  scenes  of  the  Passion — the  resemblance  is  often  very 
close ;  (4)  that  the  reports  of  Christ's  sayings  and 
discourses  in  the  Synoptics  (in  part  also  in  John)  are  but 
notes,  summaries,  condensations,  of  what  must  often 
have  been  addresses  of  considerable  duration  ;  (5)  that  in 
the  privacy  of  familiar  intercourse  with  His  disciples 
(e.g.,  John  xiii.-xvii.)  Jesus  would  express  Himself  in  a 
very  different  way  from  what  He  did  in  His  popular 
preaching  to  the  multitudes.  The  objective  parabolic 
character  of  the  latter  would  give  place  to  a  style  more 
intimate,  flowing,  and  tender.  I  conclude  that  there  need 
be  no  hesitation  in  accepting  the  Fourth  Gospel  as 

*See  an  interesting  little  work  by  Dr.  Elder  Cumming,  He  Chose 
Twelve.  An  analysis  of  John's  Gospel  at  the  close  brings  out  that  in 
this  Gospel,  "out  of  the  three  years'  ministry  and  33  years'  life,  we 
have  [only]  18  days  and  their  events,  besides  discourses."  In  another 
admirable  work  which  should  be  better  known,  The  Days  of  the  Son 
of  Man,  by  G.  W.  Macalpine,  an  analysis  is  also  given,  which  brings 
out  nearly  the  same  results  (pp.  7-9). 

190 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

A   GENUINE    WORK 

of  the  beloved  disciple.  Such  being  the  general  character 
of  our  four  Gospels,  it  needs  no  elaboration  of  argument 
to  prove  how  strong  and  reliable  is  the  evidence  they 
afford  to  the  character,  claims,  words,  deeds  of  the  Jesus 
whose  portrait  they  enshrine. 

A   FOURFOLD    ASPECT. 

If  Matthew  writes  predominatingly  for  Jews,  to  set 
forth  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  Mark  for  Gentiles,  to  exhibit 
Him,  by  His  wondrous  works,  as  the  Son  of  God,  Luke, 
as  the  companion  of  Paul,  to  picture  Him  as  the 
gracious  Saviour,  John,  rising  above  time  relations,  to 
declare  His  oneness  in  eternity  with  God,  it  is  yet  the 
same  Christ  that,  under  these  several  aspects,  they  depict. 
The  harmony  of  character  is  as  remarkable  as  the  variety 
of  representation. 

Of  special  interest  is  the  value  of  the  evidence  which 
the  Gospels  afford  to  the  element  most  impugned  in  the 
life  of  Jesus — 

HIS    MIRACLES. 

That  evidence  is  often  represented  as  weak  ;  rightly 
apprehended,  it  is  irresistibly  strong.  The  special  fact  to 
be  kept  hold  of  here  is  that  behind  the  individual  miracle 
there  stands  the  whole  mass  of  evidence  sustaining  the  historicity 
and  credibility  of  the  Gospels  as  a  whole.  There  are  three 
main  strands  in  this  evidence  for  the  miracles  of  Jesus  : 
(i)  There  is  the  fact  that  the  miraculous  element  can- 
not be  eliminated  from  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels. 
The  miraculous  is 

MINUTELY  AND   INSEPARABLY   INTERWOVEN 

with  the  texture  of  the  Gospels,  and  it  is  impossible  to 
get  rid  of  it  without  destroying  the  whole.      Instead  of 

191 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

the  miracle  discrediting  the  narrative,  the  internal  marks 
of  truth  in  the  narrative  and  other  evidences  of  historicity 
sustain  the  credit  of  the  miracle.  As  little  can  miracle 
be  got  rid  of  by  mutilation  of  the  text.  It  is  a  purely 
arbitrary  procedure,  e.g.,  on  the  part  of  Wellhausen,  to 
leave  out  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew  from  his 
version  of  the  Gospels.  The  account  of  the  Nativity  in 
Luke,  again,  likewise  omitted  by  Wellhausen,  is  an 
integral  part  of  the  Gospel,  exhibiting  the  well-known 
marks  of  that  author's  style. 

(2)  The  miracles   are  sustained  by   the  fact  that  the 
narratives  of  the  ministry  to  which  they  belong  rest  on 

FIRM   APOSTOLIC   TRADITION, 

or,  better,  testimony.  The  story  as  it  stands  in  the 
Gospels  does  not  rest  on  the  individual  testimony  of  the 
author  of  the  Gospel.  He  is  putting  down  what  was 
known  and  believed  in  the  Church  generally  as  derived 
from  those  who  had  been  "  eye-witnesses  and  ministers 
of  the  Word."  There  was  a  fixed  tradition  carefully  con- 
veyed to  the  Churches,  and  made  the  basis  of  catechetical 
instruction.     The  Gospels  are  the  deposit  of  it  in  writing. 

(3)  Taking    the    Gospels    by    themselves,    they    rest 
ultimately  on  the 

TESTIMONY   OF   EYE-WITNESSES. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  does  not  suffer  by  its  being, 
in  some  cases,  the  testimony  of  the  twelve  (or  eleven) 
combined.  The  Resurrection,  e.g.,  rests  on  the  combined 
witness  of  all  the  Apostles.  But  in  the  Gospels  we  have 
individual  testimony  also.  Few  now  doubt  that  at  least 
the  ground-stock  of  Matthew  is  from  the  pen  of  that 
Apostle,  and  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  the 
whole  Gospel  is  so.  Even  if  Logia  are  assumed,  it  is 
certain  that  these  embraced  narrative  elements.      Mark, 

192 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

it  has  been  seen,  is  really  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  whose 
estimony  to  the  facts  of  Christ's  ministry  the  Evangelist 
preserves.  Luke,  in  his  preface,  carries  us  back  to  eye- 
witnesses as  the  source  of  his  information.  In  John's 
Gospel,  finally,  we  have  the  testimony  of  an  eye-witness. 
All  these  witnesses  include  miracle  in  what  they  report 
of  the  life  of  Jesus.  The  miracles  themselves  have  a 
congruity  with  the  character  of  Christ,  and  the  ends  of 
His  ministry,  which  give  them  a  claim  upon  our  faith. 

V. 

Only  one  point  more,  and  I  leave  the  subject.  It 
relates  to  the  alleged  falsification  by  history  of  Christ's 
repeated  predictions  of  His 

RETURN    IN    GLORY. 

These  also  form  an  essential  part  of  the  Gospel  testimony 
about  Jesus,  and  cannot  be  separated  from  it.  Yet  well 
nigh  nineteen  centuries  have  passed,  and  the  Lord  has 
not  returned  yet.  As  Prof.  Huxley  puts  the  point  in  one 
of  his  essays:*  "  One  thing  is  quite  certain  :  if  that  belief 
in  the  speedy  second  coming  of  the  Messiah,  which  was 
shared  by  all  parties  in  the  Primitive  Church,  whether 
Nazarene  or  Pauline,  which  Jesus  is  made  to  prophesy, 
over  and  over  again,  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  which 
dominated  the  life  of  Christians  during  the  first  century 
after  the  Crucifixion  ;  if  He  believed  and  taught  that, 
then  assuredly  He  was  under  an  illusion,  and  He  is 
responsible  for  that  which  the  mere  effluxion  of  time  has 
demonstrated  to  be  a  prodigious  error."* 

I  do  not  stay  to  discuss  the  many  subsidiary  questions 
that  arise  here — whether,  e.g.,  the  Parousia  of  Christ  was 
conceived  of  by  Him  as  a  single  event,  or  not,  rather,  as 
a  process,  with  many  stages,  culminating  in  His  Personal 

*Agnosticis?n  :  A  Rejoinder. 

193  0 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Return  at  the  end  of  the  age.  I  accept  the  fact  that  the 
Personal  Return  of  the  Lord  was  clearly  predicted  by 
Himself  in  many  passages,  and  that  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  appears  throughout  as  the  great 

IMPENDING  EVENT  OF  THE  FUTURE, 

for  which  His  people  are  exhorted  to  watch  and  wait ; 
which,  therefore,  must  ever,  if  they  truly  look  for  it,  be 
near  to  them  in  spirit.  And  I  make  on  the  predictions 
of  this  great  event  but  two  remarks : — (i)  It  is 
repeatedly  declared,  and  by  none  more  emphatically  than 
by  Jesus  Himself  that 

THE   "TIMES   AND   SEASONS" 

of  these  final  events  were  kept  by  the  Father  in  His 
own  power,  and  were  not  made  known  to  man  (Acts  i.  7). 
Even  in  Matt.  xxiv.  Jesus  distinguishes  clearly  between 
"  these  (nearer)  things,"  which  were  to  be  fulfilled  in  that 
generation  (ver.  34),  and  "  that  day  and  hour,"  of  which 
He  says  that  no  man  knoweth,  neither  the  angels,  nor 
even  the  Son  (ver.  36,  Mark  xiii.  32).     (2)  Has 

THE   CHURCH    ITSELF   NO   RESPONSIBILITY 

for  the  delay  in  the  Lord's  coming  ?  This  is  an  aspect 
of  the  subject  often  overlooked.  Prophecy  is  conditional 
(Cf.  Jer.  xviii.  7-10,  &c).  From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
absolute  knowledge  of  the  Father,  the  time  of  the  Advent 
(like  the  day  of  one's  own  death)  is  fixed  ;  but  relatively 
and  humanly  we  can  do  much  either  to  hasten  or  retard 
the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises,  and  the  triumph  of  His 
Kingdom.  The  Westminster  Catechism  interprets  the 
second  petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  a  prayer  that  "  the 
Kingdom  of  grace  may  be  advanced,  and  the  Kingdom  of 
glory  may  be  hastened."     But  if  the  Kingdom  of  glory 

194 


The  Bulwark  of  the  Gospels 

may  be  hastened,  may  it  not  also  be  kept  back  ?  Had 
the  Church  been  more  faithful  in  the  Apostolic  and  in 
subsequent  ages,  would  the  consummation  not  have  been 
nearer  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  here  ?  This  is,  to  my 
mind,  an  all-important  fact  to  be  considered  when  we  ask 
the  question — Why  has  the  Lord  not  come  ? 


195 


IX 

Oppositions  of  Science 


Oppositions  of  Science 

IT  is  taken  for  granted  in  many  quarters  that  there  is 
a  wide  and  growing  gulf  between  science  and 
Christian  faith.  This  impression,  fostered  by  such 
books  as  Draper's  Conflict  Between  Religion  and  Science, 
White's  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in  Christendom, 
and  now  Foster's  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion,  is 
commonly  accompanied  by  the  belief,  often  by  the  bold 
assertion,  that  the  general  attitude  of  scientific  men  is 
one  of  alienation  from  Christianity.  While  criticism  has 
been  undermining  belief  in  the  Bible  from  within, 
science,  it  is  assumed,  has  been  demonstrating  its  irre- 
concilability with  the  actual  constitution  of  things  in  the 
outward  world. 
The  whole 

ARRAY   OF   THE   SCIENCES 

is  brought  in  as  witness  against  the  Bible.  The 
Copernican  astronomy,  it  is  alleged,  has  destroyed  its 
view  of  the  cosmos  ;  geology  has  disproved  its  cosmogony, 
and  view  of  the  age  of  the  earth  ;  anthropology  has 
similarly  confuted  its  teaching  on  the  age  of  man  ; 
evolution  has  taken  the  ground  from  its  belief  in  Eden, 
and  a  pure  beginning  of  the  race.  Once  it  is  realised, 
say  the  objectors,  that  the  earth  is  not  the  centre  of  the 
universe,  but  a  mere  speck  in  the  infinity  of  worlds  ;  that 
the  world  existed  for  untold  ages  before  man's  advent ; 
that  man  himself  is  a  slow  development  from    inferior 

199 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

forms,  and  appeared  as  far  back  as  100,000,  200,000  or 
500,000  years  ago  ;  that  his  original  condition  was  one  of 
brutishness,  rising  into  savagery,  then,  after  long 
struggling,  into  civilisation,  the  whole  scheme  of 
Christianity,  based  on  the  idea  that  our  planet  was  the 
peculiar  scene  of  God's  revelations,  of  the  fall  and 
redemption  of  man,  and  of  the  incarnation  of  God's  Son 
for  the  purposes  of  that  redemption,  sinks  in  irretrievable 
ruin.      Advancing  knowledge  has  given  it  its  death-blow. 


I. 

It  may  be  of  some  service  if  I  attempt  in  this  paper  to 
show  that  such  statements  are 

EXTREMELY  WIDE   OF   THE   MARK, 

and  that  neither  Christianity  nor  the  Bible  are  in  the 
slightest  danger  from  any  results  that  genuine  science 
has  succeeded  in  establishing.  There  are  certain  things, 
however,  which  it  is  desirable  I  should  say  at  the  outset 
on  this  alleged  conflict  between  the  Christian  religion 
and  science. 

The  first  is,  that  much  which  passes  under  the  name 
of  "science  "  is  not  science  at  all,  but 

CRUDE   AND    UNWARRANTED    SPECULATION, 

and  often  extremely  bad  philosophy.  This  is  peculiarly 
true  of  that  remarkable  mixture  of  scientific  facts,  rash 
theorising,  and  bad  metaphysics  met  with  in  the  works  of 
the  Jena  savant  Haeckel  recently  popularised  among  us. 
Haeckel  sets  himself  to  disprove,  on  scientific  grounds, 
the  cardinal  religious  ideas  of  God,  the  soul,  immortality ; 
but  the  weapons  by  which  he  assails  these  ideas  are  not 
derived  from  anything  properly  called  science,  but  from  a 
semi-materialistic    theory    of     "  Monism  " — a    so-called 

200 


Oppositions  of  Science 

"  law  of  substance" — which  scarcely  anyone  possessed  of 
a  smattering  of  philosophic  knowledge  at  the  present  day 
would  discredit  himself  by  countenancing.  It  is  a 
singular  fact  that,  by  confession  of  his  own  pages,  most 
of  Haeckel's  chief  authorities — Virchow,  Du  Bois- 
Reymond,  Wundt,  Romanes,  &c. — later  in  life  deserted 
him,  and  became  advocates  of  an  opposite  and  spiritua- 
listic interpretation  of  the  universe — Romanes  becoming 
decidedly  Christian.  Wundt,  in  the  second  edition  of 
his  work  on  Human  and  Animal  Psychology  declared  that 
the  first  edition,  in  which  he  had  advocated  views  like 
Haeckel's,  "weighed  on  him  as  a  kind  of  crime,  from 
which  he  longed  to  free  himself  as  soon  as  possible." 

A  second  thing  I  desire  to  observe  is,  that  the  alleged 
divorce  between  scientific  thought  and  Christian  belief  in 
our  own  time  is,  to  say  the  least, 

A   GROSS   EXAGGERATION. 

Multitudes  of  scientific  men  themselves,  if  they  were 
consulted,  would  resent  the  imputation.  I  give  two 
illustrations.  When,  many  years  ago  (1879),  ^r-  Froude 
had  indulged  in  the  usual  declamation  about  "  the 
ablest,"  "  the  most  advanced,"  "  the  best  scientific 
thinkers "  having  abandoned  Christianity,  and  even 
theistic  belief,  the  late  Professor  Tait,  of  Edinburgh, 
as  distinguished  a  representative  of  physical  science  as 
then  lived,  replied  in  an  article  in  the  International 
Review  with  "  a  prompt  and  decided  '  No  !  ' "  He 
asked  of  any  competent  authority,  who  were  the 
"  advanced,"  the  "  best,"  and  the  "  ablest "  scientific 
thinkers  of  the  immediate  past,  or  of  that  time, 
and,  after  giving  his  list  of  those  whom  he  con- 
sidered such,  he  declared  them  to  be  on  the  side  of 
faith.  He  summed  up  :  "  The  assumed  incompatibility 
of  religion  and  science  has  been  so  often  and  confidently 

201 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

asserted  in  recent  times,  that  it  has  come  .  .  .  to  be 
taken  for  granted  by  the  writers  of  leading  articles,  &c. ; 
and  it  is,  of  course,  perpetually  thrust  before  their  too 
trusting  readers.  But  the  whole  thing  is  a  mistake,  and 
a  mistake  so  grave  that  no  truly  scientific  man  .  .  . 
runs,  in  Britain  at  least,  the  smallest  risk  of  making  it. 
.  .  .  With  a  few,  and  these  very  singular,  exceptions, 
the  true  scientific  men  and  true  theologians  of  the  present 
day  have  not  found  themselves  under  the  necessity  of 
quarrelling."  Lord  Kelvin  has  recently  spoken  in  the 
same  strain  for  himself  and  others. 

My  other  example  is  from  the  late  George  G. 
Romanes,  who,  after  a  long  eclipse  of  faith,  died  a  devout 
believer,  in  full  communion  with  the  Church  of  England. 
In  his  posthumously  published  Thoughts  on  Religion,  he 
has  left  the  avowal  that  one  thing  which  specially 
impressed  him  was  the  large  number  of 

CHRISTIAN    MEN   OF   SCIENTIFIC   ATTAINMENTS 

in  his  own  University  of  Cambridge.  "The  curious 
thing,"  he  says,  "  is  that  all  the  most  illustrious  names 
were  ranged  on  the  side  of  orthodoxy.  Sir  W.  Thomson, 
Sir  George  Stokes,  Professors  Tait,  Adams,  Clerk 
Maxwell,  and  Bayley — not  to  mention  a  number  of  lesser 
lights,  such  as  Routh,  Todhunter,  Ferrers,  &c. — were  all 
avowed  Christians"  (p.  137).  It  maybe  thought, 
perhaps,  that  it  is  different  now.  Romanes  himself,  with 
his  return  to  faith,  is  an  instance  to  the  contrary.  But, 
generally,  I  should  be  disposed  to  say  that  the  conditions 
were  less  favourable  to  faith  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago 
than  they  are  in  the  more  spiritual  atmosphere  of  to-day. 
I  have  the  privilege  of  the  acquaintance  of  many  pro- 
fessors and  teachers  of  science,  and  the  majority  of  them 
are  Christian  men. 

There  is  yet  another  fact  which  it  is  important  I  should 

202 


Oppositions  of  Science 

emphasise.  The  assumption  commonly  made  in  discus- 
sions of  this  sort  is  that,  in  the  conflicts  of  science  and 
religion,  it  is  invariably  science  that  comes  off  the  victor. 
This,  however,  is  a  proposition  which  needs  much  quali- 
fication. It  would  be  truer  to  say  that,  in  the  alleged 
conflicts  of  science  and  religion,  the  victory  is 

SELDOM,   OR   NEVER,   ALL   ON    ONE    SIDE. 

If  theology  makes  mistakes,  so  assuredly  does  science. 
Progress  has  been  accomplished,  in  science  as  in 
theology,  by  the  gradual  unlearning  of  errors  and  discard- 
ing of  defective  theories  for  new  and  more  adequate  ones. 
If  theologians  looked  askance  on  Copernican  astronomy 
or  on  Darwinian  theories  of  evolution  they  were  not  alone 
in  this  ;  the  science  of  their  time  did  the  same.  The 
foolish  attacks  of  theologians  on  science  have  been  more 
than  paralleled  by  the  foolish  attacks  of  scientific  men  on 
theology. 

What  is  more  to  the  point,  the  opposition  of  religion 
to  new  scientific  theories  has  not  always  been  wholly 
wrong.  It  will  be  seen  as  we  proceed  that  many  of  the 
theories  to  which  defenders  of  religion  took  exception 
were  really  in  their  original  form  liable  to  objection,  and 
have  since,  by  the  progress  of  science  itself,  been  greatly 
modified.  This  is  specially  true  of  the  Darwinian  theory 
of  evolution,  and  of  the  anthropological  speculations  con- 
nected with  it.  Theologians  were  not  unjustified  in  the 
strictures  they  passed  on  the  specific  Darwinian  theory, 
with  its  apotheosis  of  fortuity.  In  the  progress  of  dis- 
cussion it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  objections  they 
took  to  the  sufficiency  of  that  theory  have  in  the  main 
been  found  valid. 

One  further  caution  I  would  venture  to  give,  viz.,  that 
in  science,  as  in  criticism,  it  is  well  not  to  allow  the  mind 
to  be  overborne  by  the  mere  weight  of 

203 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

EXPERT   OPINION. 

Experts  may  err,  and  do  err,  and  their  judgments  often 
seriously  conflict.  Examples  might  easily  be  given  of 
the  danger  of  trusting  too  implicitly  to  untested  assertions 
even  in  plain  matters  of  fact. 

II. 

Looking    now,   first,   at   the   bearings   of   science    on 
religion 

ON   THE   WIDE    SCALE, 

can  we  say  that  science  has  destroyed  any  of  the  great 
fundamental  ideas  of  the  religion  of  the  Bible — God,  the 
soul,  the  future  life,  moral  and  spiritual  government  of 
the  world — or  has  it  not  rather  brought  manifold  con- 
firmations to  these  ideas  ?  Has  it  succeeded,  e.g.,  in 
breaking  down  the  barrier  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
material,  the  vital  and  the  non-vital,  the  free  and  the 
necessitated,  or  in  banishing  from  the  interpretation  of 
nature  the  ideas  of  creative  power  and  of  wise  and 
purposeful  action  ?  Everyone  acquainted  with  the  best 
scientific  thought  knows  that  the  opposite  is  the  case. 
The  trend  at  present  is  all  in  the  direction  of 

A   SPIRITUALISTIC   INTERPRETATION 

of  nature.  The  idea  of  "  teleology  "  (ends,  design,  final 
cause)  has  had  a  remarkable  revival  in  connection  with 
evolutionism,  in  opposition  to  "  naturalistic "  theories. 
Prof.  Foster  may  be  our  witness  here,  for  he  devotes  a 
whole  chapter  of  his  book  to  illustration  of  the  fact,  and 
what  he  says  is  only  the  echo  of  what  the  men  of  insight 
are    proclaiming     everywhere.*       The     attempts    at    a 

*Ch.  vi.  of  Professor  Foster's  work  is  entitled  "  The  Naturalistic 
and  the  Religious  View  of  the  World."  It  is  really  largely  indebted 
to  a  German  work,  by  Rudolf  Otto,  mentioned  below,  Naturalisiiche 
unci  Religbse  Weltansicht.  [This  book  is  now  translated  in  the 
"Crown  Theological  Library"  under  the  title,  Naturalism  and 
Religion.'] 

204 


Oppositions  of  Science 

mechanical  or  merely  chemical  explanation  of  "  life " 
have  broken  down  utterly.*  The  declaration  in  May, 
1903,  of  Lord  Kelvin — than  whom  no  man  stands  higher 
in  physical  and  mathematical  science — that  science  not 
only  did  not  deny,  but  positively  affirmed,  the  reality  of 
creative  power  and  directive  intelligence,  will  long  be 
remembered. 

Take  the  question  of 

THE  SOUL  AND  THE   FUTURE   LIFE. 

Science,  of  course,  cannot  make  positive  assertions  on 
immortality,  but  it  lends  at  least  powerful  support  to  that 
belief  in  the  distinction  which  every  advance  in  deeper 
knowledge  of  ourselves  enables  us  to  make  between 
spiritual  mind  and  material  brain — between  our  souls  and 
the  corporeal  organism  which  meanwhile  they  inhabit.  I 
leave  aside  the  strange  region  explored  by  "  Psychical 
Research,"  and  keep  to  open,  everyday  facts  of  common 
experience.  And  here,  if  one  thing  emerges  more  clearly 
than  another,  it  is  the  fallacy  of  a  materialistic  explana- 
tion of  mental  phenomena,  and  the  truth  of  the  impass- 
able distinction  between  mind  and  brain.  I  will  not  use 
my  own  words,  but  will  quote  those  of  one  of  the  acutest 
of  recent  German  writers, 

RUDOLF   OTTO, 

on  the  subject.  "Consciousness,  thought,"  he  says, 
11  nay,  the  humblest  feeling  of  pleasure  or  pain,  or  the 
simplest  sensuous  perception,  are  nothing  that  can  be 
compared  with  '  matter  and  force,'  with  movements  of 
parts  of  masses.  They  are  a  foreign,  perfectly  inexplic- 
able guest  in  this  world  of  matter,  molecules,  and 
elements.     Even  if  we  could  follow  most  precisely  and 

*See  an  article  on  "  The  Origin  of  Living  Organisms,''  by  Professor 
J.  Arthur  Thomson,  in  the  London  Quarterly  Review^  October 
1906. 

205 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

minutely  the  play  of  the  nervous  processes  with  which 
feeling,  consciousness,  pain,  or  pleasure  are  connected, 
if  we  could  make  our  brain  transparent,  and  magnify  its 
cells  to  houses,  so  that,  wandering  among  them  and 
glancing  around,  we  could  count  and  watch  all  that  takes 
place,  and  follow  even  the  dance  of  the  molecules,  we 
should  never  see  *  pain,'  '  pleasure,'  '  thought,'  but  always 
only  bodies  and  their  movements.  A  thought,  say  the 
recognition  that  2X2  =  4,  is  not  long  or  broad,  not 
above  or  below,  not  to  be  measured  or  weighed  by  inches 
or  pounds  like  matter  .  .  .  but  is  something  entirely 
different,  which  must  be  known  from  inner  experience, 
yet  is  known  from  this  far  better  and  more  immediately 
than  anything  else,  and  which  can  absolutely  be  com- 
pared with  nothing  but  itself."  * 
Is  it,  then,  in  the  idea  of 

A   REIGN    OF   LAW 

that  science  strikes  athwart  belief  in  a  revelation  from 
God,  undeniably  involving  miraculous  elements  ?  So,  as 
we  saw  before,  think  Prof.  Foster  and  a  multitude  of 
others  in  these  times;  but  their  confident  assertion  that 
law  excludes  miracle  would  not  have  been  endorsed  by 
such  thinkers  as  Prof.  Huxley  or  J.  S.  Mill,  and  is  with- 
out justification  in  either  science  or  reason.  The  Bible 
also  recognises  law  in  nature.  "  For  ever,  O  Lord,  Thy 
word  is  settled  in  heaven.  .  .  Thou  hast  established 
the  earth,  and  it  abideth.  They  abide  this  day  accord- 
ing to  Thine  ordinances  ;  for  all  things  are  Thy  servants  " 
(Ps.  cxix.  89).  But  law  is  God's  servant,  not  His  master; 
and  nothing  prevents  His  acting  above,  without,  or 
beyond  it,  if  the  highest  ends  of  His  government  call  for 
such  action. 

We  may  go  further,  and  say  that  in  the 

*  In  the  work  above  referred  to,  Nat.  unci  Rel.  Weltansicht^  pp. 
233-4.     [E.  T.,  p.  300.] 

206 


Oppositions  of  Science 

HISTORY   OF   NATURE   ITSELF 

science  reveals  to  us  facts  which  rational  thought  can 
only  construe  as  "  miracles."  Nature's  course  is  marked 
by  the  breaking  forth  of  ever  new  powers — as  in  the 
transition  from  inorganic  to  organic — and  the  founding 
of  higher  orders  of  existence,  for  the  explanation  of  which 
we  are  compelled  to  go  directly  back  to  the  Central 
Creative  Cause.*  In  another  way  science  does  some- 
thing to  remove  the  offence  of  miracle  by  its  constant 
discoveries  of  the  depths  of  hidden  powers  in  nature  of 
which  Omnipotence  can  avail  itself  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  its  purposes — thus  softening  the  transition  from 
natural  to  supernatural.  But  no  powers  of  mere  nature 
can  avail  for  the  restoring  of  sight  to  the  totally  blind, 
the  instantaneous  cleansing  of  the  flesh  of  a  leper,  or  the 
raising  of  the  dead  to  life,  so  that  the  idea  of  miracle,  in 
the  stricter  sense,  remains.  Yet  such  acts  are  neither 
beyond  the  power  of  God,  nor  unworthy  of  Him,  if 
sufficiently  weighty  reasons,  of  which  He  alone  can  judge, 
are  present  for  its  exercise. 

There  is  a  further  difficulty  connected  with  law  on 
which  a  word — and  it  can  only  be  a  word — may  here  be 
said.  Does  not  a  reign  of  law,  it  may  be  asked,  at  the 
very  least,  exclude 

SPECIAL   PROVIDENCE   AND   PRAYER, 

both  elements  in  the  religious  conception  of  the  Bible  ? 
The  difficulty  is  to  many  minds  a  very  real  one ;  yet  help, 
I  think,  may  be  got  from  considering  that  laws  and  forces 

♦Sabatier  has  said:  "At  each  step  nature  surpasses  itself  by  a 
mysterious  creation  that  resembles  a  true  miracle  in  relation  to  an 
inferior  stage,"  and  infers  that  "  in  Nature  there  is  a  hidden  force,  an 
incommensurable  '  potential  energy,'  an  ever-open  unexhausted  fount 
of  apparitions,  at  once  magnificent  and  unexpected.'" — Phil  of Rel.,  p. 
84.  Call  this  Power  "  God,"  and  the  analogy  with  miracle  is  com- 
plete. 

207 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

of  nature  of  themselves  explain  nothing — apart,  that  is, 
from  the  way  in  which  these  laws  and  forces  are  combined, 
and  co-operate  to  the  production  of  special  results.  As 
the  Apostle  puts  it,  all  things  "work  together"  for  gocd 
to  them  that  love  God  (Rom.  viii.  28).  To  borrow  a 
phrase  for  which  J.  S.  Mill  acknowledges  his  indebtedness 
to  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers — in  order  to  explain  nature  as 
we  find  it,  we  need  to  take  account,  not  only  of  "laws," 
but  of  the  "  collocation  "  of  laws.  A  machine — e.g.,  a 
printing-press — produces  its  results  through  the  operation 
of  laws.  Yet  the  laws  would  accomplish  nothing  were  it 
not  that  the  machine  is  put  together  in  a  certain  way, 
and  that  the  forces  at  work  in  it  are  regulated  and  directed 
to  a  certain  end.  Laws  alone,  therefore,  do  not  explain  the 
universe ;  there  is  needed  plan,  direction,  guidance ;  there 
is  needed  the  mind  and  the  hand  behind  the  machine — 
the  combination  of  laws  and  forces — guiding  it  in  the 
work  it  has  to  do.  When  it  is  remembered  that  the  mind 
behind  Nature — the  mind  which  has  the  whole  plan  at 
every  instant  before  it — is  that  of  the  infinitely  wise 
Author  of  Nature  Himself,  it  will  be  seen  what  large 
room  there  is  for  a  providence  as  special  as  Jesus  teaches 
us  to  believe  in  (Matt.  vi.  30-34,  x.  29-30),  a  prayer  as 
effective  as  His  promises  are  great  (Matt.  vii.  7-11,  Mark 
xi.  24,  Luke  xviii.  1-7,  John  xiv.  13,  14). 


III. 

From  these  general  considerations  on  the  scientific 
conception  of  nature  we  are  brought  back  to  the  diffi- 
culties presumed  to  arise  from 

THE    SPECIAL    SCIENCES, 

some  of  the  chief  of  which  may  now  receive  attention. 
The  result,  I  believe,  will  be  to  show  that  there  is  as  little 

208 


Oppositions  of  Science 

reason  to  fear  for  the  Bible  in  this  special  sphere  as  in 
the  general. 

I  mentioned  in  the  opening  paper  that  few  Christians 
are  now  troubled  in  mind,  even  in  the  least  degree,  by  the 
stupendous  enlargement  of  our  knowledge  of  the  physical 
universe  through  the  discoveries  of  astronomy.  Yet  there 
are  scientific  men,  with  scholars  in  other  departments, 
who  seriously  persuade  themselves  that  the  acceptance  of 

THE   COPERNICAN    SYSTEM 

is  absolutely  fatal  to  the  ordinary  Christian  scheme. 
"  The  earth,"  says  Professor  Foster,  "is  but  an  ordinary 
satellite  of  a  planet  which  is  itself  only  a  star  among 
numberless  stars,  a  mere  vanishing  point  in  the  illimitable 
All.  This  grain  of  sand  on  the  shore  of  the  infinite  sea — 
how  could  centrality  and  supremacy  be  still  accorded  to 
it  ?  And  that  which  takes  place  upon  its  surface — how 
could  it  be  decisive  of  the  fate  of  the  shoreless  All  ?  "  (p. 
165).*  How  could  such  an  insignificant  point  in  space 
be  conceived  of  as  the  theatre  of  the  grand  divine  drama 
of  Incarnation  and  Redemption  ? 
This  is  the  so-called 

"astronomical  objection  " 

to  which  Dr.  Chalmers  sought  to  reply  in  his  Astronomical 
Discourses,  and  which  has  so  often  been  replied  to  since. 
It  was  an  objection  keenly  felt  at  first  by  believers  in  the 
old  Ptolemaic  astronomy,  which  made  the  earth  to  be 
the  centre  of  the  universe.  Luther,  Melanchthon,  Calvin, 
John  Owen,  John  Wesley  even,  all  opposed  the  new 
doctrine  as  contrary  to  Scripture.  They  were  mistaken. 
It  has  now  long  been  recognised  that  what  enlarges  our 

*  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how,  with  his  own  view  of  the  Christian 
religion  and  of  God's  great  and  final  revelation  to  the  world  in  Christ, 
Dr.  Foster  is  in  much  better  case  than  others  for  meeting  this 
objection,  in  his  eyes,  so  formidable. 

209  P 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

thoughts  of  God's  universe  enlarges  our  thoughts  of  God 
Himself.  It  has  come  to  be  perceived  that  these  good 
men  made 

A   WRONG    USE    OF    SCRIPTURE, 

and  that  it  is  no  part  of  the  function  of  the  Bible  to 
anticipate  modern  physical  discoveries.  The  Bible  is  no 
manual  of  sixteenth  or  twentieth  century  astronomy,  but 
speaks  of  the  world  and  of  natural  appearances  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  ordinary  observer,  as,  indeed,  we  our- 
selves do  when  we  speak  of  the  sun  rising  and  setting, 
and  of  the  movements  of  the  moon  and  stars  across  the 
heavens.  Does  anyone  now  dream,  e.g.,  of  interpreting 
the  language  of  the  Bible  in  the  igth  Psalm  in  any  other 
way  ?  The  Copernican  discovery  helped  men  to  get  the 
right  point  of  view  in  relation  to  the  Bible,  as  well  as  the 
right  point  of  view  in  the  relation  of  the  earth  to  the  sun. 
But  does  not  the  Copernican  system,  in  itself,  it  may 
be  said,  conflict  with  the  Biblical  teaching  on  man's  place 
in  the  universe,  and  with  God's  great  love  for  him,  and 
care  for  him  in  his  salvation  ?     I  do  not  think  that,  once 

THE   TRUE    STATE    OF   THE    CASE 

was  clearly  grasped,  Christian  people  in  any  great  numbers 
have  ever  felt  that  it  did.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that,  even 
when  the  world  was  believed  to  be  the  centre  of  creation, 
man  was  not  thought  of  as  the  only  intelligent  being  in  the 
universe.  Beyond  this  visible  system  were  the  heavens 
of  heavens,  peopled  with  innumerable  hosts  of  spiritual 
intelligences,  "  thrones,  dominions,  principalities, 
powers,"  standing,  many  of  them,  in  the  immediate  light 
of  God's  presence.  The  change  was  not  very  great  when 
the  visible  universe  also  was  thought  of  as  possibly 
tenanted  by  rational  beings  more  nearly  resembling  man 
himself.  What,  as  regards  the  main  fact,  does  it  matter, 
even  if  it  were  so  ?      As  I  have  put  the  point  elsewhere 

210 


Oppositions  of  Science 

— "  Be  the  physical  magnitude  of  the  universe  what  it 
may,  it  remains  the  fact  that  on  this  little  planet  life  has 
effloresced  into  reason  ;  that  we  have  here 

A   RACE   OF   RATIONAL   BEINGS 

who  bear  God's  image,  and  are  capable  of  knowing, 
loving,  and  obeying  Him.  .  .  .  Even  supposing  that 
there  were  other  inhabited  worlds,  or  any  number  of 
them,  this  does  not  detract  from  the  soul's  value  in  this 
world.  Mind,  if  it  has  the  powers  we  know  it  has,  is  not 
less  great  because  other  minds  may  exist  elsewhere.  Man 
is  not  less  great  because  he  is  not  alone  great."*  It  does 
not  exalt,  but  really  derogates  from,  the  perfection  of  God 
to  suppose  that  He  will  love  man  less,  or  do  less  for  his 
salvation,  because  the  universe  holds  other  objects  of  His 
love  and  care.  Is  it  not  the  part  of  the  Good  Shepherd 
to  leave  the  ninety-and-nine,  and  seek  out  the  one  lost 
sheep  (Luke  xv.  3-7)  ? 

This  alone  is  sufficient  to  meet  the  objection,  but 
science  itself  now  forces  on  us  another  question  of 
surprising  import.  Is  it,  after  all,  the  case  that  the 
universe  is  infinite  in  extent,  and  that  it 

TEEMS   WITH    WORLDS 

peopled  with  intelligences,  like  to,  or  greater  than,  our 
own  ?  So,  on  a  priori  grounds,  it  is  often  supposed  ;  but 
those  who  have  read  Dr.  A.  R.  Wallace's  recent  book, 
Man's  Place  in  the  Universe,  will  know  how  much  courage 
it  takes  to  answer  that  question  in  the  affirmative.  Dr. 
Wallace's  book  is  nothing  less  than  the  reaffirmation  of 
the  thesis,  on  what  claim  to  be  grounds  of  "  the  new 
astronomy,"  that  our  earth — or  rather  the  solar  system  ot 
which  it  forms  a  part — is  situated  somewhere  at  or  near 
the  centre  of  the  stellar  universe,  shown  by  him  to  be 

*Christian  View  of  God  and  the   World,  p.  325. 

211 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

limited  in  extent  ;  and  that,  according  to  every  proba- 
bility, the  inhabitants  of  this  planet  are  the  only  rational 
intelligences  in  the  worlds  the  telescope  reveals.  The 
book  has  been  criticised  on  astronomical  and  other 
grounds ;  but,  on  the  whole,  the  author  seems  to  have 
made  out  his  case  that  our  system  is  situated  in  the 
medial  plane  of  the  Milky  Way,  and  near  the  centre  of  it, 
and  that  the  constitution  and  conditions  of  the  other 
planets  of  our  system,  and  of  the  more  distant  parts  of 
the  universe  now  known  to  us  by  the  telescope  and 
spectroscope,  are  entirely  unfavourable  to  the  idea  of 
their  being  the  abodes  of  intelligent  life.*     If  such 

11  GEOCENTRIC  "    SPECULATIONS 

are  admitted,  what  becomes  of  the  "astronomical 
objection "  ?  Science  throws  an  altogether  unexpected 
weight  into  the  scale  against  its  cogency. 


IV. 

The  lesson  taught  as  to  the  right  use  of  Scripture  by 
the  astronomical  difficulty  received  new  application  and 
accentuation  in  the  controversy  that  arose  in  last  century 
as  to  the  bearing  on  the 

BIBLICAL   ACCOUNT   OF   THE   CREATION 

of  the  discoveries  of  geology.  The  law  applies  here  also 
that  the  Bible  is  not  designed  to  anticipate  the  discoveries 
of  nineteenth  century  science,  but  speaks  of  natural  things 
as  they  lie  open  to  the  eye  of  the  ordinary  observer,  and 

*Cf.  interesting  critical  articles  on  Dr.  Wallace's  book  in  the 
Edinburgh  Review,  July,  1904;  Church  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1904; 
and  the  London  Quarterly  Review,  January,  1904.  I  had  myself 
urged  like  considerations  in  my  Christian  View  of  God,  pp.  324-5. 
Cf.  Note,  pp.  468-70  (8th  edition). 

212 


Oppositions  of  Science 

uses  the  language  that  would  be  understood  by  readers  of 
its  own  time.  Gen.  i.  says,  "  God  created,"  but  leaves 
it  open  to  any  subsequent  discovery  to  show  the  method 
of  His  creation.  This  Genesis  record  is  utterly  unlike  any 
other  cosmogony  that  ever  was  given.  Its  inspiration  is 
attested  by  its  monotheistic  character,  its  sublimity  of 
thought  and  style,  and  its  truth  of  representation  in 
essential  points.  Comparison  with  the  debased,  poly- 
theistic creation-legend  of  Babylonia  only  brings  out 
more  forcibly  the  unchallengeable  superiority  of  the 
Biblical  account.  Its  intention  is  primarily  to  be  the 
vehicle  of  the  great  religious  ideas  that  inform  it  ;  yet,  so 
true  is  the  insight  yielded  by 

THE   SPIRIT   OF   REVELATION, 

that  the  writer  or  seer  is  able  really  to  seize  the  great 
stadia  in  the  process  of  creation,  and  to  represent  these  in 
a  way  which  conveys  a  practically  accurate  concep- 
tion of  them  to  men's  minds.  Proof  of  this  is  hardly 
needed  when  we  have  a  certificate  to  the  fact  from  no 
less  redoubtable  an  authority  than  Haeckel  himself.  He 
speaks  of  "  the  simple  and  natural  chain  of  ideas  which 
runs  through  "  the  Mosaic  account,  emphasises  how  "  two 
great  and  fundamental  ideas,  common  also  to  the  non- 
miraculous  theory  of  development,  meet  us  in  the  Mosaic 
hypothesis  of  creation  with  surprising  clearness  and 
simplicity — the  idea  of  separation  or  differentiation,  and 
the  idea  of  progressive  development  or  perfecting"  and 
bestows  his  "just  and  sincere  admiration  on  the  Jewish 
law-giver's  grand  insight  into  nature,  and  his  simple  and 
natural  hypothesis  of  creation."* 
The  tribute  thus  paid  is  just.     I  do  not  touch  on  the 

HARMONIES  OF  GENESIS  AND  GEOLOGY, 

but  only  ask  the  reader  to  consider  if  it  would  have  been 
*Hhtory  of  Creation,  I.,  pp.  37-8  (E.T.) 

213 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

possible  to  construct  such  parallels  as  we  have,  for 
instance,  in  Hugh  Miller's  Testimony  of  the  Rocks,  had  there 
not  been  at  least  very  remarkable  general  resemblances 
to  go  upon.  To  my  own  mind  the  general  harmony  does 
seem  very  striking.  I  quote  again  words  of  my  own — 
"  The  dark  watery  waste  over  which  the  Spirit  broods 
with  vivifying  power,  the  advent  of  light,  the  formation 
of  an  atmosphere  or  sky  capable  of  sustaining  the  clouds 
above  it,  the  settling  of  the  great  outlines  of  the  con- 
tinents and  seas,  the  clothing  of  the  dry  land  with 
abundant  vegetation,  the  adjustment  of  the  earth's  rela- 
tion to  sun  and  moon  as  the  visible  rulers  of  its  day  and 
night,  the  production  of  the  great  sea  monsters  and 
reptile-like  creatures  and  birds,  the  peopling  of  the  earth 
with  four-footed  beasts  and  cattle,  last  of  all,  the  advent 
of  man — is  there  so  much  of  all  this  which  science 
requires  us  to  cancel  ?  "  * 
Even  with  regard  to 

the  "days  " 

— the  duration  of  time  involved — there  is  no  insuperable 
difficulty.  The  writer  may  very  well  have  intended 
symbolically  or  pictorially  to  represent  the  Creation  as  a 
great  Week  of  work,  ending  with  the  Creator's  Sabbath 
rest.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  more  probable,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  days  of  twenty-four  hours  do  not  begin  to 
run  till  the  appointment  of  the  sun  on  the  fourth  day 
(Gen.  i.  14),  that  he  did  not  intend  to  affix  a  precise 
length  to  his  Creation  "days."  These,  therefore,  may 
be  allowed  to  represent  long  periods  of  duration.  This 
view  was  taken,  on  exegetical  grounds  alone,  by  Christian 
writers  long  before  geology  was  heard  of.t 

*  Christian  View  of  God,  p.  421. 

t  E.g.  by  Augustine,  De  Civitate  Dei,  XL,  6-7  ;  "  Of  what  fashion 
these  days  were,  it  is  exceedingly  hard  or  altogether  impossible  to 
think,  much  more  to  speak,"  &.c. 

214 


Oppositions  of  Science 

But  suppose  it  granted  that  the  difficulty  is  largely 
past  in  regard  to  the  age  of  the  earth,  is  there  not  still  a 
serious  obstacle  to  the  acceptance  of  the  Bible's  teaching 
in  the  declarations  of  science  on  the  extreme 

ANTIQUITY  OF   MAN  ? 

If  man's  appearance  on  the  earth  is  to  be  carried  back 
100,000  or  200,000  years,  or  even  farther,  how  does  this 
fit  in  with  the  Bible's  account  of  his  creation,  apparently 
some  6,000  years  ago  ? 

A  preliminary  inquiry  would  be,  Is  it  clear  that  man's 
existence  needs  to  be  carried  back  so  far  ?  I  prefer,  how- 
ever, to  look  at  the  matter  first  on  its  Biblical  side.  I 
leave  to  those  who  care  for  them  speculations  on  "  pre- 
Adamic  "  man  and  the  like,  and  accept  for  myself  what  I 
take  to  be  the  plain  teaching  of  Scripture,  that  man, 
made  in  God's  image,  was  the  last  of  the  Creator's  works 
(Gen.  i.  26,  27),  and  that  the  whole  race  of  human  beings 
has  sprung  from  "  Adam,"  the  first  created  man  (Gen. 
iii.  20).  How  is  the  date  usually  assigned  to  this  event 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  alleged  facts  of  anthropology  ? 

The  honest  answer  to  this  question  must  be,  It  cannot 
be  reconciled  ?  Apart  from  anthropology  altogether,  the 
course  of  discovery  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt  has  been 
such  as  to  show  that  man  existed  on  the  earth  in  a  state 
of  civilisation 

MANY   MILLENNIUMS   EARLIER 

than  was  formerly  believed.  The  Bible  itself,  however,  is 
not  thereby  discredited,  but  only  the  human  chronologies 
based  on  it — as  it  has  proved,  mistakenly.  The  Bible 
gives,  indeed,  summaries  of  early  human  history,  and 
genealogical  tables  extending  in  apparently  unbroken 
line  from  Adam  to  Abraham  and  Moses.  But  just  here 
the  fallacy  comes  in.     For,  setting  mythical  explanations 

2I5 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

aside,  who  is  to  guarantee  that  these  genealogies  are  or 
were  ever  intended  to  be  complete,  or  that  they  do  not  in 
some  cases  represent  heads  of  families,  or  clan-fathers,  or 
typical  links  in  a  long  chain  of  descent,  the  intermediate 
links  of  which  are  dropped  out  ?    The 

HIGHLY  TECHNICAL   MANNER 

in  which  genealogies  were  commonly  constructed  (Cf.  the 
list  of  the  seventy  who  went  down  with  Jacob  to  Egypt, 
Gen.  xlvi.,  which,  with  other  anomalies,  includes  Jacob 
himself,  and  the  two  sons  of  Joseph,  born  in  Egypt,  ver. 
20,  in  the  number)  *  the  frequent  mingling  of  clan  or 
tribal  names  with  personal  (as  obviously  in  Gen.  x.  xi.), 
the  compression  of  lists  by  omission  of  names  (as  in 
Christ's  genealogy  in  Matt.  i.  where  three  names  are 
omitted  between  Joram  and  Uzziah,  ver.  8),  show  con- 
clusively that  it  is  impossible  to  use  such  genealogies  as 
we  have  in  Gen.  v.  and  xi.  as  a  basis  for  accurate  chrono- 
logical reckoning.  So  obvious  is  this  on  reflection  that 
the  most  conservative  Biblical  students  seem  now  agreed 
that  the  early  genealogies  must  be  interpreted  with  great 
latitude,  and  that  nothing  stands  in  the  way  of  a  large 
extension  of  the  period  of  man's  existence  on  the  earth,  if 
such  should  prove  to  be  required.! 
It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  the 

EXTRAVAGANT   CLAIMS 

put  forth  in  certain  scientific  quarters  for  man's  antiquity 
are  offhand  to  be  accepted.      There  are  the  best  reasons 

•  Cf.  my  Problem  of  the  O.  T.,  p.  367. 

t  I  need  instance  only  the  Princeton  theologians  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge, 
in  his  Outlines  of  Theology  (Edit.  1879),  p.  297;  Dr.  W.  H.  Green,  in 
a  striking  article  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  April,  1890,  in  which  the 
whole  subject  is  discussed  ;  Dr.  J.  D.  Davis  in  Art.  "  Chronology ''  in 
his  Did.  of  the  Bible.  Cf.  also  Bishop  Ellicott's  O.  T.  Coin.  Jor 
English  Readers,  I.,  pp.  33-35,  &c. 

2l6 


Oppositions  of  Science 

for  not  accepting  them.  The  older  estimates  of  geological 
time,  generally,  have  had  to  be  enormously  retrenched, 
and  one  by  one  the  criteria  relied  on  to  prove  man's 
extreme  antiquity  have  been  shown  not  to  be  reliable. 
The  assumption  of  Tertiary  (even  of  Miocene  or  Pliocene) 
man  may,  in  the  present  state  of  the  evidence,  be 
dismissed  from  consideration.  The  question  of  man's 
age  now  resolves  itself  pretty  much  into  that  of  man's 
relation  to  the  glacial  period  (pre-glacial,  inter-glacial, 
post-glacial),  and  on  this  experts  are  far  from  agreed. 
Two  things  seem  to  myself  fairly  well  ascertained — first, 
that  the  earliest  certain  traces  of  man  are  towards  the 
close  of  the  glacial  period,  and,  second,  that  the  close  of 
this  period,  and,  with  it,  the 

ADVENT   OF   MAN 

are  much  more  recent  than  was  some  time  ago  imagined. 
There  seems  good  and  constantly  accumulating  evidence 
that,  in  America  at  least  (the  conditions  in  Europe  were 
probably  not  widely  dissimilar),  the  glacial  age  closed 
not  more  than  from  7,000  to  10,000  years  ago.  This 
brings  the  age  of  man  within  quite  reasonable  limits. 

The  evidence  on  these  points,  so  far  as  I  know  it,  I 
have  set  forth  in  a  recent  book,*  and  I  need  not  here 
repeat  it.  I  only  observe,  in  illustration  of  the  first,  that 
in  the  latest  book  I  have  seen  on  the  subject — that  on 
North  America,  by  I.  C.  Russell,  Professor  of  Geology  in 
the  University  of  Michigan  (1904) — it  is  very  confidently 
stated  that  "  we  find  no  authentic  and  well-attested 
evidence  of  the  presence  of  man  in  America,  either 
previous  to  or  during  the  glacial  period  ...  all  the 
geological  evidence  thus  far  gathered  bearing  on  the 
antiquity  of  man  in  America  points  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  came   after  the  glacial  epoch  "  (p.  362).      The  case 

*Cf.  my  volume  on  God's  Image  in  Man  and  Its  Defacement. 

217 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

does  not  seem  to  be  very  different  in   England,  and  pro- 
bably is  not  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  either. 

In  this  connection  many  authorities,  as  Prestwich, 
Howarth,  the  late  Duke  of  Argyll,  Dawson,  G.  F.  Wright, 
&c,  think  that  geology  proves  an  extensive  post-glacial 
submergence,  after  the  advent  of  man,  which  they  relate 
with 

THE    NOACHIAN    DELUGE. 

Sir  Henry  Howarth  says  :  "I  do  not  see  how  the 
historian,  the  archaeologist,  and  the  palaeontologist  can 
avoid  making  this  conclusion  in  future  a  prime  factor  in 
their  discussions,  and  I  venture  to  think  that  before  long 
it  will  be  accepted  as  unanswerable."* 


V. 

What  now,  finally,  is  to  be  said  of  the 

BRUTE   ORIGIN   OF   MAN  ? 

Has  evolution  not  demonstrated  that  man  is  a  slow 
development  from  the  ape,t  that  his  original  condition 
was  one  of  unrelieved  animalism,  and  that  his  first 
appearance  on  earth  must  be  put  back  countless  ages — 
perhaps  to  Eocene  times — to  allow  of  his  making  the 
advances  he    has   done?      If  so,  what    becomes  of    his 

*  The  Mammoth  and  the  Flood,  p.  463.  Cf.  Argyll's  Geology  and 
the  Deluge,  1885  ;  Arts,  by  G.  F.  Wright  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1902. 
&c. 

tHaeckel  writes  : — "  I  have  given  fully  in  my  History  of  Creation 
the  weighty  reasons  for  claiming  this  descent  of  man  from  the 
anthropoid  apes."  .  .  .  "  It  is,  therefore,  established  beyond 
question  for  all  impartial  scientific  inquiry  that  the  human  race  comes 
directly  from  the  apes  of  the  old  world."  ..."  The  resistance  to 
the  theory  of  a  descent  from  the  apes  is  clearly  due  in  most  cases  to 
feeling  rather  than  to  reason." — {Evolution  of  Man,  Pop.  Edit., 
pp.  264,  352). 

3l8 


Oppositions  of  Science 

being  made  in  the  image  of  God,  as  Scripture  affirms, 
and  of  his  fall  from  innocence  in  Eden?  If  his  primitive 
condition  was  not  one  of  innocent  simplicity,  what 
becomes  of  the  whole  Scripture  doctrine  of  sin  ?  These 
are  grave  questions,  but  I  believe  that,  without  contra- 
vening any  established  scientific  facts,  a  satisfactory 
answer  can  be  given  to  them. 

There  is  no  need  for  challenging  the  general 

DOCTRINE   OF   EVOLUTION, 

supported  as  that  is  by  many  evidences.  But,  as  every 
scientific  man  knows,  evolution  and  the  Darwinian 
theory  of  evolution  are  very  distinct  things.  The  former 
may  be  accepted  and  the  latter  rejected.  Darwinism 
is,  in  fact,  at  the  present  moment  being  largely  super- 
seded by  a  type  of  evolution  of  a  quite  different  stamp. 
This  "  newer  evolution,"  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  denies 
the  sufficiency  of  the  Darwinian  theory  of  natural 
selection  acting  on  fortuitous  variations :  seeks  the  causes 
of  organic  development  chiefly  within  the  organism; 
affirms  purpose  and  design  ;  above  all,  challenges  the 
view  that  new  species  originate  by  slow  and  insensible 
variations  out  of  others,  and  lays  the  stress  on  "sudden 
changes,"  "abrupt  mutations,"  the  rapid  "breaking  up" 
of  existing  types,  and  appearance  of  new  and  higher 
forms.  Professor  Foster,  in  his  book  already  frequently 
quoted,  gives  some  account  of  it,  as  I  myself  had  done 
in  my  book  on  God's  Image  in  Man,  and  goes  so  far  as 
to  say  that  "it  sets  aside  Darwinism  as  an  overcome 
hypothesis"  (p.  235).* 

It  is  obvious  that  if  this  new  theory  of 

"saltatory"  or  "mutational"  evolution 

*I  have  pointed  out  that  Prof.  Foster  owes  much  to  Rudolf  Otto, 
whose  papers  on  the  subject  I  frequently  refer  to  in  the  Notes  to  my 
own  book.  [These  able  papers  are  now  republished  in  the  volume 
previously  alluded  to.     Cf.  E.T.  chaps,  iv.  to  vii-] 

219 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

is  accepted  it  does  away  at  a  stroke  with  nearly  all  the 
difficulties  connected  with  the  origin  of  man.  It  involves 
a  revolution  in  the  way  of  conceiving  the  evolutionary 
process  at  once  as  regards  the  time  required,  the 
nature  of  the  forces  employed,  and  the  need  of  sup- 
posing minute  gradations  between  the  lower  and 
higher  forms.  In  man's  case  there  is  no  longer  need 
for  supposing  a  slow  and  gradual  ascent  from  ape  to  true 
man  ;  the  "leap,"  when  the  proper  time  comes,  may  be 
taken  with  all  the  suddenness  needed  to  introduce  the  new 
being,  with  his  distinctive  attributes,  upon  the  scene. 
Neither  is  there  any  need  for  picturing  man,  on  his  first 
appearance,  as  a  semi-animal,  the  subject  of  brute 
impulse  and  unregulated  passion  ;  his  nature  may  have 
been  internally  harmonious,  with  possibilities  of  sinless 
development,  which  only  his  own  free  act  annulled. 
Room  is  given  on  this  view  for 

A   DOCTRINE   OF   SIN 

— both  individual  and  racial — such  as  Scripture  affirms 
and  requires  as  the  basis  of  its  doctrine  of  redemption, 
and  as  experience  so  abundantly  ratifies. 

In  corroboration  of  the  view  now  presented  of  the 
origin  of  man  and  in  opposition  to  the  Darwinian  and 
Haeckelian  theories  of  the  descent  of  man,  two  all- 
important  facts  may  be  briefly  adverted  to. 

The  first  is  the  continued 

ABSENCE  OF  ALL  REAL  MIDDLE  LINKS 

between  man  and  his  hypothetical  ape-ancestor.  The 
Miocene  "  Dryopithecus  "  is  now  generally  given  up,  and 
hope  is  chiefly  rested  on  the  remains  of  the  supposed  "  Ape- 
Man"  (Pithecanthropus  Ercctus) — roof  of  a  skull,  some 
teeth,  a  thigh-bone — discovered  in  1892-4  by  Dubois,  a 
Dutch  doctor  in  Java.  But  scientific  opinion  steadily  tends 
to  the  rejection  of  this  also  as  a  true  intermediate  form.  At 

220 


Oppositions  of  Science 

an  Anthropological  Congress,  held  at  Lindau  in  Sep- 
tember, 1899,  Dr.  Bumiiller  read  a  paper  in  which  he 
declared  that  the  supposed  "  Pithecanthropus  "  is  nothing 
but  a  gibbon,  as  Virchow  surmised  from  the  first.  Last 
year  an  eminent  anatomist,  Prof.  J.  Kollmann,  of  Basel, 
contributed  to  a  scientific  magazine  {Globus)  an  elaborate 
article  on  the  Descent  of  Man.  In  this  he  discusses  the 
Java  specimen,  and  rejects  it  as  a  middle  link  between 
man  and  the  apes.*  More  than  this  he  holds,  and  argues 
for,  the  view  that  man's  line  of  descent  is  not  through  the 
larger  anthropoid  apes  at  all — some  anthropologists  con- 
tend, not  through  apes  of  any  kind  !  Of  course,  if  this 
is  true,  the  whole  question  falls  to  the  ground. 
The  second  fact  is  that 

THE   OLDEST   SKULLS 

yet  discovered  do  not  afford  support  to  the  theory  of  the 
slow  ascent  of  man  from  the  ape.  Some  of  them,  as  the 
Engis  and  Cro-magnon  skulls,  are  of  excellent  brain 
capacity ;  others,  as  the  Neanderthal,  Canstadt,  and  Spy 
skulls,  are  more  degraded.  A  recent  discovery  (1900)  of 
a  skull  of  a  diluvial  man  in  Krapina,  in  Croatia,  of  the 
Neanderthal  type  (with  differences),  adds  interest  to  the 
problem.  All  these  skulls  are  truly  human,  and  can  be 
paralleled  by  existing  races.  Huxley,  in  his  work  on 
Man's  Place  in  Nature,  in  1879,  affirmed  of  the  Neanderthal 
skull  that  it  could  in  no  sense  be  regarded  as  inter- 
mediate between  man  and  the  ape,  and  in  an  article  in 
The  Nineteenth  Century,  1900  (pp.  750  ff),  he  reaffirms, 
with    slight    qualifications,    his    former    verdicts.       He 

*He  adheres  to  the  view  he  expressed  at  a  Berlin  Congress  that  the 
Javan  specimen  is,  indeed,  a  highly  interesting  ape  of  the  great  group 
of  the  anthropoids,  but  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  transitional  form  to 
man.  An  account  of  this  article  was  given  in  the  Westminster  Gazette 
for  August  30,  1906.     I  quote  from  the  article  itself. 

221 


The    Bible   Under  Trial 

endorses  the  words  of  M.  Fraipont :  "  Between  the  man 
of  Spy  and  an  existing  anthropoid  ape  there  lies  an  abyss." 
Prof.  Kollmann  is  of  opinion  that  the  better-formed  skulls 
are  the  older. 

I  would  only  add  that,  so  far  as  history  has  any  voice 
in  this  matter,  it  does  not  confirm  the  idea  of  a  gradual 
ascent  of  man  from  lowest  barbarism.  The  further  we 
push  back 

THE   ANCIENT   CIVILISATIONS 

we  find  still  true  man,  in  all  the  plerititude  of  his  powers, 
and  possessed  of  arts,  cities,  culture,  and  religion. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  may  still  affirm  without 
mistrust  the  old  genealogy,  which  alone  answers  to  the 
facts  of  man's  nature — "  .  .  .  the  son  of  Adam,  the 
son  of  God  "  (Luke  iii.  38). 


VI 

To  this  discussion  of  the  general  relation  of  religion  to 
the  sciences,  I  may,  in  conclusion,  append  a  few  words 
on  the  objection  sometimes  raised  to  the  Gospels  in  the 
name  of  science  on  the  subject  of 

DEMON-POSSESSION . 

Professor  Huxley,  who  may  speak  for  all,  puts  the  matter 
in  his  usual  strong  way  thus  : — "  If  Jesus  taught  the 
demonological  system  involved  in  the  Gadarene  story — if 
a  belief  in  that  system  formed  a  part  of  the  spiritual 
convictions  in  which  He  lived  and  died — then  I,  for  my 
part,  unhesitatingly  refuse  belief  in  that  teaching,  and 
deny   the   reality   of    those    spiritual  convictions."*     In 

*  Essay  on  Agnosticism  and  Christianity. 

222 


Oppositions  of  Science 

strictness,  as,  indeed,  Professor  Huxley  occasionally 
admits,  the  question  is  not  one  of  science  at  all*,  for  the 
existence  and  operation  of  a  spiritual  kingdom  of  evil  lies 
beyond  the  province  of  a  science  of  nature  altogether. 
On  the  point  of  fact,  however,  many  feel  as  Professor 
Huxley  did  on  demoniacal  possession,  and  resort  to 
theories  of  "  accommodation,"  or  to  Kenotic  views  of  the 
limitations  of  our  Lord's  human  knowledge,  to  get  rid  of 
the  difficulty. 

It  seems  to  me,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  if  Jesus  stood 
in  the  spiritual  rapport  with 

THE    INVISIBLE   WORLD, 

which  the  Gospels  declare  He  did,  this  is  precisely  one  of 
the  things  on  which  it  is  impossible  that  He  could  be  mis- 
taken. It  is  granted  that  Jesus  believed  in  an  evil 
spiritual  world,  and  in  an  "  Evil  One,"  who  was  its 
prince  and  ruler.  I  accept  the  belief  on  His  authority 
and  because  I  think  it  not  unreasonable  in  itself,  and 
borne  out  by  many  facts  in  experience  and  history. t  I 
am  not  at  all  prepared  to  affirm  that  demoniacal  posses- 
sion in  the  strict  sense  does  not  yet  exist.  I  believe  that 
many  things  could  be  adduced  to  show  that  it  does.  I  take 
the  Gospels,  accordingly,  as  they  are  on  this  point,  without 
attempting   to   explain    their    testimony    away.J     It   is 

*  He  repeatedly  declares  in  the  course  of  his  discussion  with  Dr 
Wace  that  he  has  "no  a  priori  objection  to  offer,"  that  "for  any- 
thing" I  can  prove  to  the  contrary,  there  may  be  spiritual  beings 
capable  of  the  same  transmigration,"  that  he  is  ''  unable  to  show 
cause  why  these  transferable  devils  should  not  exist."  (Essays  on 
Agnositicism,  &c.) 

t  See  the  weighty  remarks  on  this  subject  in  Gore's  Dissertations, 
pp.  23-27. 

X  The  Rev.  D.  Smith,  in  his  work  The  Days  of  His  Flesh,  thinks 
that  Jesus,  "knowing  right  well  what  the  ailment  was,"  "dealt  with 
the  demoniacs  after  the  manner  of  a  wise  physician.  He  did  not 
seek  to  dispel  their  hallucination.      He  fell  in  with  it,  and   won  their 

223 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

reasonable  to  believe  that  the  hour  of  "the  power  of 
darkness  "  (Luke  xxii.  53)  would  be  marked  by  exceptional 
manifestations  of  this  form  of  evil.  It  is  not  the  case, 
besides,  that,  as  sometimes  said,  all  diseases  were  ascribed 
to  demoniacal  agency,*  though  possession  was  usually 
accompanied  by  some  form  of  disease  {e.g.,  Mark  ix.  ijff). 
Distinction  is  clearly  made  in  the  Gospels  between 
ordinary  sickness,  disease,  lunacy,  and  possession  (Cf. 
Matt.  iv.  23,  24 ;  ix.  32-35  ;  x.  8,  &c). 


confidence"  (p.  108).  In  the  case  of  the  Gadarene  demoniac,  Mr. 
Smith  thinks  that  the  Lord,  humouring  the  mans  delusion,  "  pressed 
the  swine  into  the  service  of  His  humane  endeavours.  .  .  .  He 
smote  the  creatures  with  a  sudden  panic,  and  they  rushed  down  the 
incline  to  their  destruction.  The  stratagem  was  entirely  successful" 
(P-  l93)-     To  me  it  seems  easier  to  believe  in  the  demons. 

*  Cf.   The  Days  of  His  Flesh,  p.  105. 

224 


X 


The  Bible  and  Ethics: 
"God  and  My  Neighbour 


5? 


The  Bible  and   Ethics : 

44  God  and  My  Neighbour 


THE  Bible  is  assailed  on  its  ethical  side.  The  attack 
has  been  continuous  from  the  days  of  Celsus  and 
the  Gnostics  in  the  second  century,  down  through 
the  Deists  of  the  eighteenth  century,  to  the  philo- 
sophical, critical,  and  freethinking  schools  of  our  own 
day.  Sometimes  there  is  a  genuine  zeal  for  morality  in 
the  accusations  made  :  at  other  times,  as  in  the  coarser 
free-thinking  organs,  the  attacks  are  wanton,  ribald,  and 
vulgar. 
The  shapes  which  this  assault  upon  the  Bible  assumes 

ARE   PROTEAN. 

The  character  of  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament  is 
vehemently  assailed.  The  ancient  Gnostics  represented 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  as  partial,  passionate, 
vindictive,  cruel,  and  many  moderns  reiterate  the  charge. 
Even  a  writer  of  the  better  order  like  Dr.  Ladd  does  not 
hesitate,  in  his  recent  book  on  The  Philosophy  of  Religion, 
to  endorse  the  statement :  "  The  Black  Man  of  some 
shivering  communistic  savages  is  nearer  the  morality  of 
our  Lord  than  the  Jehovah  of  Judges"  (I.  p.  226).  If 
that  be  so,  it  need  not  be  said  that  the  "Jehovah  of 
Judges "  is  no  true  God,   and  there   is  no  meaning  in 

227 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

speaking  of  "  revelation "  in  connection  with  Him. 
Much  of  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  is  denounced 
as  barbarous.  Its  heroes  are  pilloried  as  unworthy  and 
immoral.*  The  prophets  are  commonly  allowed  to 
have  higher  conceptions,  but  even  they  are  held  in  many 
ways  to  have  fallen  short  of  perfect  morality.  Jesus  Him- 
self, while  generally  an  object  of  reverence,  does  not 
wholly  escape  censure.  His  ideals  are  thought  to  be 
visionary  and  unpractical.  Extremists  like  Nietzsche  go 
further,  and  rave  against  Him  as  the  arch-misleader  of 
the  race.  His  morality  is  a  "  morality  for  slaves." 
Paul's  doctrines  are  alleged  to  have  an  immoral  tendency. 
The  inferences  which  the  Apostle  repudiated  as 
blasphemy — "  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come " 
(Rom.  iii.  8) — "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may 
abound  ?  "  (Rom.  vi.  i) — are  held  to  be  the  true  outcome 
of  his  teaching. 

All  this  seems  very  shocking,  but  it  has  to  be  dealt 
with.     No  one  denies  that  there  are 

GENUINE   MORAL   DIFFICULTIES 

in  the  Bible,  as  there  are  in  the  ordinary  providence  of 
God.  But  this  is  not  the  spirit  in  which  to  approach 
them.  If  there  is  one  force  that  has  wrought  for  the 
moral  upbuilding  of  mankind  more  than  another,  every- 
candid  mind  knows  it  is  the  Bible.  It  is  not  difficult  to 
show  that  the  greater  number  of  these  so-called  "  difficul- 
ties,"    at    any    rate,    are    due    to     misconception    and 

*Cf.  Mr.  Blatchford  on  "  The  Heroes  of  the  Bible,"  in  his  book 
God  and  My  Neighbour.  "  It  seems  strange  to  me,"  he  says,  "that 
such  men  as  Moses,  David,  and  Solomon  should  be  glorified  by 
Christian  men  and  women,  who  execrate  Henry  VIII.  and  Richard 
III.  as  monsters.  My  pet  aversion  among  the  Bible  heroes  is  Jacob; 
but  Abraham  and  Lot  were  pitiful  creatures."  Is  Lot  a  Bible 
"  hero  "  ? 

228 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

perversion,  and  that  much  of  the  argument  against  the 
morality  of  the  Bible  is  pure  irrelevance.  While,  if  the 
Bible  is  regarded  in  the  balance  of  its  parts,  in  its  true 
character  as  a  progressive  revelation,  and  in  the  total 
impression  its  teaching  makes  upon  the  mind,  it  is  seen 
to  be  a  book  which,  from  its  first  page  to  its  last,  "  makes 
for  righteousness  " — exalts  holiness,  condemns  sin,  aims 
at  nothing  so  much  as  the  complete  conquest  of  evil  in 
human  hearts  and  subjugation  of  it  throughout  the 
universe. 

I. 

I  have  said  that  many  of  the  objections  to  the  morality 
of  the  Bible  arise  from 

MISCONCEPTION   AND    PERVERSION. 

I  need  hardly  stay  to  vindicate  the  character  or  religion  of 
Jesus  from  Nietzsche's  extravagances,  or  to  show  that 
the  Bible  is  not  committed  to  the  approval  of  the  sins  it 
impartially  narrates,  even  in  the  case  of  those  who  are 
called  its  "  heroes."  What  is  to  be  said  of  the  character 
and  shortcomings  of  these  will  be  seen  after. 

But  even  those  who  have  higher  ideas  of  the  morality 
of  Israel  make  sometimes  very  indefensible  statements. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand,  e.g.,  how  a  writer  like  Dr. 
Buchanan  Gray  can  permit  himself  to  say,  as  he  does  in 
his  Divine  Discipline  of  Israel,  that  the  Hebrews  "  were 
bound  by  moral  obligation  and  the  sanction  of  religion  in 
their  dealings  with  one  another,  but  were  entirely  free  of 
these  in  their  dealings  with  foreigners"  (p.  48).  What 
grounds  exist  for  such  a  statement  ?  Who  can  read  the 
early  chapters  of  the  Bible  without  seeing  that  it  is  con- 
stantly assumed  that  there  are  moral  laws  which 

BIND   HEBREWS  AND   HEATHENS   ALIKE, 

and  that  the  transgression  of  these  is  sin,  which  "the 

229 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Judge  of  all  the  earth  "  (Gen.  xviii.  25)  must  punish  ? 
Why  else  the  judgment  of  the  flood  (Gen.  vi.  11-13),  the 
destruction  of  the  cities  of  the  Plain  (Gen.  xviii.  20),  the 
rooting-out  of  the  Canaanites  (Gen.  xv.  16 ;  Lev.  xviii. 
24  ff. ;  Deut.  xii.  29  ff.)  ?  Had  Abraham  no  sense  of 
rights  as  between  man  and  man  in  his  transactions  with 
the  sons  of  Heth  about  a  burying-place  (Gen.  xxiii.),  or 
Joseph  in  his  behaviour  in  the  house  of  his  master  the 
Egyptian  (Gen.  xxxix.  4-6,  9)  ?  Even  in  the  passage 
which  Dr.  Gray  cites  in  support  of  his  theme — Abraham's 
passing  off  his  wife  as  his  sister  at  Gerar — Abimelech 
reproaches  Abraham  :  "  Thou  hast  done  deeds  unto  me 
that  ought  not  to  be  done"  (Gen.  xx.  9). 

Many  of  the  objections  to  the  ethics  of  the  Bible  arise 
from  ignoring  the  law  of 

PROGRESS   IN   REVELATION, 

which,  even  in  respect  of  morality,  is  one  that  must  cer- 
tainly be  recognised.  It  was  as  impossible  in  the 
twentieth  century  before  Christ  as  it  is  in  the  twentieth 
century  after  Christ  to  introduce  a  ready-made  system  of 
morality,  perfect  in  its  principles  and  applications,  and 
carried  out  with  full  consistency  in  an  ideal  constitution 
of  society.  It  may,  in  our  eyes,  be  a  drawback  that 
society  is  constituted  on  the  principle  of  historical 
evolution  :  but  so  it  is,  and  even  revelation  has  to  take 
account  of  the  fact.  I  do  not  undervalue  the  amount  of 
moral  light  which  even  the  ancient  world  possessed.  As 
the  study  of  ancient  religions  shows  (Babylonia,  Egypt), 
that  moral  light  was  often  very  great.  The  world  as  Paul 
affirms,  had  from  the  first  a  great  deal  more  light,  both 
religious  and  moral,  than  it  knew  well  how  to  make  use 
of  (Rom.  i.  21,  25,  28). 

Yet  there  is  progress.     One  has  only  to  compare 

THE  CONCEPTIONS  OF  THESE  ANCIENT   TIMES, 
23O 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

even  within  the  Bible,  with  those  of  later  periods,  to  see 
how  much  purer  and  more  spiritual  moral  ideas  had 
become  in  the  days  of  the  prophets  ;  and  how  far  even 
beyond  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  is  the  perfect 
spirituality  of  the  law  of  love  as  enunciated  by  Jesus 
Christ.  Polygamy,  slavery,  marriage  of  near-of-kin, 
blood-revenge,  corporate  responsibility,  the  unsparing  use 
of  the  sword  in  war,  were  features  of  that  old  society  into 
which  revelation  entered,  and  it  was  plainly  impossible  to 
abolish  them  at  a  stroke.  Christianity  itself,  while  incul- 
cating principles  which  strike  at  the  root  of  slavery,  war, 
and  many  other  evils,  has  even  yet  not  been  able  to 
banish  these  evils  wholly  from  society,  though  it  is 
working  steadily  to  that  end.  What  then  was  possible 
at  an  earlier  time  but  to  take  a  single  people  out  of  the 
mass — or  rather  develop  such  a  people  from  the  indi- 
vidual and  family — and,  starting,  as  was  inevitable,  at  the 
stage  the  world  then  occupied,  to  train  and  discipline 
this  selected  people,  under  the  guidance  of  special  revela- 
tion, to  something  better,  for  the  ultimate  benefit  of  the 
whole  of  mankind  (Gen.  xii.  1-3)  ?  And,  as  we  know, 
this  was  actually  the  method  adopted. 

When  this  principle  of  development  in  God's  methods 
is  grasped, 

THE   RIGHT    PERSPECTIVE 

is  obtained,  and  each  stage  and  phase  of  revelation  is 
judged  of  by  itself,  in  the  light  of  its  aim  and  outcome, 
instead  of  being  unhistorically  judged  by  the  standards  of 
a  more  perfect  time — a  law  of  judgment  the  moralist 
would  apply  to  nothing  else.  It  does  not  follow  that  all 
difficulties  disappear,  but  we  are  now,  at  least,  in  the 
right  position  for  dealing  with  them.  It  becomes 
apparent  how,  in  the  history  of  God's  dealing  with  His 
people,  many  forces — for  instance,  the  great  religious 
ideas  embodied    in  patriarchal  and   Mosaic   revelations, 

231 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

the  principles  of  the  moral  law  itself,  as  expanded  in 
the  "statutes  and  judgments"  given  at  Sinai,  with  the 
various  checks  and  restraints  put  on  practices,  as  blood- 
revenge,  polygamy,  slavery,  which  it  was  not  possible  to 
remove  at  once — tended  of  necessity  to  a  gradual 
elevation  of  the  moral  ideal,  and  to  the  ultimate  abolition 
of  the  practices  in  question.  It  cannot  but  strike  us  that 
polygamy,  slavery,  blood-revenge,  and  similar  evils,  had  all 
but  disappeared  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  and  hardly  appear 
in  the  pictures  of  Jewish  society  in  the  Gospels. 


II. 

The  real  character  of  the  Biblical  revelation  may  now 
be  looked  at,  and  the  objections  taken  to  it  in  an  ethical 
respect  considered. 

It  is,  first  of  all,  I  would  say, 

FALSEHOOD  AND   CALUMNY 

to  speak  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a 
capricious,  cruel,  passionate,  and  vengeful  being.  Caprice, 
partiality,  favouritism,  have  reference,  I  suppose, 
to  the  law  of  election  which  conspicuously  marks 
the  Divine  procedure  in  revelation.  But  arbitrariness  is 
the  last  word  to  apply  to  this  method  of  the  Divine 
action.  What  God  does  in  His  elections  He  does  on 
wise  and  holy  grounds.  His  election,  which  is  a  historical 
necessity,  if  a  beginning  is  to  be  made  somewhere,  and 
His  purpose  is  not  to  lose  itself  in  indefiniteness,  but  is  to 
be  realised  along  definite  lines,  has  not  for  its  object 
exclusion,  but  an  ultimate  wider  delusion.  Abraham  was 
called,  that  in  him  and  his  seed  all  families  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed  (Gen.  xii.  3).  Israel  was  chosen  to  be 
God's  "  servant,"  to  carry  the  knowledge  of  God,  in  due 
time,   to  the  Gentiles  (Is.  xliv.  1-8,  &c).     To  speak  of 

232 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

Jehovah's  choice  of  Israel  as  a  piece  of  private  favouritism 
is  to  show  a  colossal  ignorance  of  the  ABC  of  the  Bible's 
teaching. 

The  other  imputations  on  the  Divine  character  are 
equally  baseless.  From  the  beginning  of  the  Bible  God 
is  represented  as  a 

HOLY   AND   RIGHTEOUS    BEING, 

condemning  sin,  punishing  the  evil-doer,  protecting  and 
rewarding  the  righteous.  Everywhere  His  holiness, 
righteousness,  wrath  against  sin,  condescending  grace, 
and  covenant-keeping  faithfulness  are  implied.  Holiness, 
as  "  the  principle  which  guards  the  eternal  distinction 
between  Creator  and  creature  "  (Martensen),  necessarily 
reveals  itself  in  God  as  "zeal"  or  " jealousy "  for  His 
own  honour  (Ex.  xx.  7),  and,  in  reaction  against  daring 
and  presumptuous  transgression,  as  wrath.  Without  an 
indignation  that  burns  against  sin  in  proportion  to  its 
heinousness,  God  would  not  be  God — the  absolutely  Holy 
One.  Mercy  or  forgiveness  would  be  emptied  of  all  its 
value  were  there  not  this  sense  of  the  evil  of  sin,  and  of 
God's  holy  judgment  upon  it,  behind.  But  cruel  and 
vindictive  the  God  of  the  Bible  is  not.  On  the  contrary, 
His  character  is 

ESSENTIALLY  MERCIFUL. 

Witness  His  name,  as  revealed  in  awful  majesty  to 
Moses  :  "  The  Lord,  the  Lord,  a  God  full  of  compassion, 
and  gracious,  slow  to  anger,  and  plenteous  in  mercy  and 
truth;  keeping  mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity 
and  transgressions  and  sin  "  ;  though  it  is  added  :  "  That 
will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7 ;  Cf. 
Ps.  ciii.  8-18).  The  history  is  but  a  prolonged  com- 
mentary on  this  character  of  God.  It  is  stamped  upon 
His  law.  It  is  written  in  its  exhortations  and  com- 
mands. 

233 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

If  this  is  the  true  character  of  the  Jehovah  of  the  Bible, 
the  answer  is  already  given  to  many  of  the  objections 

DRAWN    FROM   THE  BIBLE   CHARACTERS. 

Jehovah's  command  to  Abraham  was,  "  Walk  before  Me 
and  be  thou  perfect  "  (Gen.  xvii.  i).  Abraham's  own 
challenge  to  Him  was,  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth  do  right  ?  "  (Gen.  xviii.  25).  As  his  intercession  for 
Sodom  shows,  Abraham  knew  perfectly  clearly  the  dis- 
tinction between  "righteous"  and  "wicked."  It  is 
therefore  incredible  that  the  intention  of  the  narrator 
should  be  to  represent  God  as  approving  of,  or  indifferent 
to,  Abraham's  prevarications  about  his  wife,  which  the 
patriarch  weakly  excused  to  his  own  conscience  by  the 
half-truth  that  Sarah  was  his  sister  by  the  father's  side 
(Gen.  xx.  12).  The  "plagues"  by  which  the  sin  was 
prevented  showed  God's  estimate  of  the  transaction  (Gen. 
xii.  17  ;  xx.  18).  God  destroyed  wicked  Sodom  with  fire 
and  brimstone  (Gen.  xix.  24).  How,  then,  should  He  be 
supposed  to  do  aught  but  abominate  the  vileness  of  that 
city,  or  any  taint  that  Lot  or  his  daughters  had  con- 
tracted from  it.  David  sinned  grievously  about  Bath- 
sheba  and  her  husband ;  no  palliation  can  be  offered  for 
his  offence.  But  God  sent  Nathan  to  David  to  denounce 
him  for  his  crime,  and  declare  his  sore  punishment — a 
denunciation  which  led  to  the  king's  sincere  repentance 
(2  Sam.  xii.).  How  should  it  be  represented  as  if  the 
God  of  the  Bible  were  implicated  in,  or  condoned,  David's 
trangression  ?  I  have  read  carefully  the  Book  of  Judges. 
It  it  the  story  of  a  rude,  disorderly,  in  many  ways  evil, 
time  (Judges  xxi.  25).  But  what  I  see  chiefly  in  the 
narrative  is  that,  when  Israel  forsook  God,  He  gave  them 
into  the  hands  of  their  enemies,  and  they  were  grievously 
afflicted,  but  whenever  they  turned  to  Him  with  the 
whole    heart,    He    raised    up   saviours    for  them,    and 

234 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

delivered  them.     When,  moreover,  I  read  of  Deborah,  of 
Gideon,  or   Boaz,  and  Ruth,   I   cannot  regard  this  age, 
with  all  its  faults,  as  wholly  destitute  of  a  nobler  piety. 
The  men  of  the  Bible  must  be 

JUDGED  BY  THE  STANDARD  OF  THEIR  OWN  AGE 

— not  by  ours.  Judged  even  by  that,  they  have  faults  grievous 
and  many,  and,  as  respects  these,  are  set  forth  as  examples 
for  our  warning,  not  as  models  for  our  imitation.  But 
the  wholesale  blackening  of  their  characters  in  which 
certain  writers  indulge  can  only  be  described  as  malicious 
and  unpardonable  exaggeration.  Only  the  crassest, 
surely,  will  believe  that  God  chose  Jacob  as  heir  of  the 
blessing  because  of  his  worldly  cunning  in  over-reaching 
Esau,  or  that  David  is  pronounced  to  be  the  man  after 
God's  own  heart  because  of  his  adultery  with  Bathsheba. 
There  were  far  other  and  deeper  things  in  these  men,  or 
they  would  not  have  occupied  the  place  they  do  in  the  Bible. 
Despite  his  error  in  his  evasion  about  his  wife — an  error 
which  he,  no  doubt,  thought  an  excusable  means  of 
defence  for  both — the  character  of 

ABRAHAM 

is  one  of  the  noblest  in  the  history  of  religion.*  His 
heroic  faith,  his  prompt  and  unhesitating  obedience  to 
God's  word,  his  largeness  of  soul,  which  displays  itself  in 
all  his  conduct,  his  unfailing  courtesy,  unselfishness,  and 
meekness,  with  which  is  joined,  when  need  arises,  the 
most  conspicuous  courage  and  decision,  all  vindicate  for 
him  the  place  he  will  continue  to  hold  at  the  head  of 
revelation  as  the  Father  of  the  Faithful. 

JACOB'S 

is  a  more  complex  character — deep,  subtle,  with  a  strong 

*See  the  remarks  of  Mozley  on  Abraham  in  his  Ruling  Ideas,  &c. 
p.  21  f 

235 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

gravitation  earthwards,  and  a  tendency  to  craft,  inherited 
probably,  from  his  mother — but  none  the  less  with  a  strong 
religious  bent,  a  grasp  of  the  ideal,  a  power  of  respond- 
ing to  God's  revelations,  a  sense  of  the  value  of  spiritual 
privilege,  and,  on  the  whole,  a  patient,  faithful,  affec- 
tionate spirit,  which  grew  nobler  and  better  as  time  went 
on.  "  The  substance,  the  strength  of  the  chosen  family," 
as  Stanley  says,  "  the  true  inheritance  of  the  promise  to 
Abraham,  was  interwoven  with  the  very  essence  of  '  the 
upright  man  dwelling  in  tents,'  steady,  persevering, 
moving  onward  with  deliberate,  settled  purpose,  through 
years  of  suffering  and  prosperity,  of  exile  and  return,  of 
bereavement  and  recovery.  .  .  .  The  dark,  crafty 
character  of  the  youth,  though  never  wholly  lost — for 
'  Jacob  '  he  still  is  called  even  to  the  end  of  his  days — 
has  been  by  trial  and  affliction  changed  into  the  prince- 
like, godlike  character  of  his  manhood."  * 

DAVID'S   CHARACTER 

has  its  huge,  dark  blot,  and  minor  faults  may  be  pointed 
out  in  it,  but  no  impartial  student  of  David's  history  can 
easily  deny  that  the  character  which  the  Bible  gives 
him  as  a  man  and  king  who  sought  to  do  God's  will  is 
well  sustained  throughout.  His  youth  is  blameless  ;  his 
behaviour  at  the  court  of  Saul  is  without  reproach  ;  his 
relations  with  Saul  and  Jonathan  are  magnanimous  and 
affectionate :  his  conduct  as  leader  of  a  band  of  rude, 
rough  men  in  the  wilderness  is  such  as  to  inspire  them 
with  the  most  devoted  attachment  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  15-18). 
His  sorrow  at  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan  is  genuine 
and  intense.  His  services  to  his  nation  as  king  were  the 
greatest  a  ruler  could  render  ;  his  labours  for  the  revival 
of  religion  and  the  worthy  celebration  of  God's  worship 

* Jewish  Church,  I.,  pp.  46,  56.     See  the  whole  sketch  in  Stanley, 
in  contrast  with  Mr.  Blatchford's  caricature  of  his  "pet  aversion." 

236 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

were  the  fruit  of  sincere  conviction.  The  whole  founda- 
tions of  his  character  in  his  love  to,  and  trust  in,  God  his 
"  Rock,"  are  laid  bare  in  such  a  psalm  as  the  18th,  which 
there  need  be  no  hesitation  in  ascribing  to  him.  As  I 
have  said  elsewhere  :  "  David's  sins  were  great,  but  we 
may  trust  a  Carlyle  or  a  Maurice  for  a  just  estimate  of 
his  character,  rather  than  the  caviller,  whose  chief  delight 
is  to  magnify  his  faults."  * 


III. 

These  attacks,  then,  on  the  characters  of  the  men  of 
the  Bible  may  be  dismissed,  but  what,  it  will  be  objected, 
of  the 

OTHER   STRAINS   IN   THE   NARRATIVE 

— of  God's  tempting  of  Abraham,   of  His  visiting  the 
iniquity  of  the  fathers  on  the  children,  of  His  commands 
to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  ?    It  will  be  well  to  glance 
at  these  objections  separately. 
The  story  of 

THE   SACRIFICE   OF   ISAAC 

stands  in  close  connection  with  what  is  told  of  the  gift 
of  Isaac  to  Abraham  and  Sarah  in  their  old  age,  and  with 
the  hopes  bound  up  in  that  child  of  promise.  In  this  lay 
the  essence  of  the  trial.  The  story  itself,  it  may  be  noted, 
is  a  witness  to  the  early  date  of  the  narrative.  The 
temptation  described  is  such  as  could  only  belong  to  an 
early  stage  in  the  history.  No  Israelite  would  have 
invented  such  a  tale  about  his  progenitor,  and  the 
narrative  cannot  be  explained  as  a  reminiscence  of  any 
"  tribal  "  event.  The  incident  clearly  presupposes  that, 
in    Abraham's     day,     human    sacrifice,    especially    the 

*Prob.  of  the  0.  T.,  p.  445.  Cf.  Carlyle,  Heroes,  p.  72,  Maurice, 
Prophets  and  Kings,  pp.  toff. 

237 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

devotion  of  the  first-born  to  God,  was  a  familiar  fact  of 
Canaanitish  religion.  That  the  temptation  to  sacrifice 
his  son  arose,  as  some  suppose,  from  Abraham's  own 
thoughts,  seems  to  me,  in  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  most  improbable.  The  test  was  one  truly  imposed 
on  him  by  the  God  who  had  given  him  his  son.  The 
object  of  the  trial,  however,  was  not  to  give  approval  of 
human  sacrifice,  but,  as  the  event  showed,  after  proof 
had  been  obtained  of  Abraham's  willingness  to  surrender 
even  his  dearest  and  best  at  the  call  of  God  (Gen.  xxii. 
12),  to  put  on  such  sacrifice  the  stamp  of  the  Divine 
disapprobation,  and  rule  it  out  of  God's  worship  for  all 
time  thereafter.  Standing  at  the  commencement  of 
revelation  to  Israel,  this  incident  barred  out  all  thought 
of  human  sacrifice  as  an  acceptable  form  of  God's 
service. 

When  objection  is  taken  to  the  language  in  the  Second 
Commandment  (Ex.  xx.  5  ;  Deut.  v.  8)  about 

VISITING   THE   INIQUITY   OF  THE   FATHERS   UPON 
THE   CHILDREN, 

the  question  may  first  be  put,  Is  it  not  the  fact  that,  in 
the  natural  order  of  things,  the  sins  of  parents  are  visited 
upon  their  children  ?  What  is  the  law  of  heredity  but 
the  declaration  of  this  fact  ?  One  of  the  most  terrible 
aspects  of  wrong-doing  is  that  the  penalties  are  seldom  or 
never  confined  to  the  transgressor,  but  overflow  on  all 
connected  with  him — often  most  severely  on  his  innocent 
offspring.  This  follows  from  the  solidaric  constitution  of 
society.  But  the  point  is  missed  in  the  Second  Com- 
mandment when  the  stress  is  laid  on  the  unrelieved 
operation  of  this  providential  law.  The  contrast  in  this 
place  is  rather  with  what  is  said  in  the  next  clause  about 
God's  showing  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love 
Him    (Ex.    xx.  6).       The    entail   of  evil  is  viewed  as 

238 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

descending  only  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation.  God 
is  reluctant,  as  it  were,  to  think  of  it  descending  further. 
But  His  mercy,  in  contrast,  is  viewed  as  descending  to 
thousands  of  generations  (Cf.  Ps.  ciii.  17).  Mercy,  in  the 
prospect,  swallows  up  judgment.  How  different  an 
aspect  does  the  Commandment  assume  when  regarded 
in  this  light! 

THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  CANAANITES 

presents  a  real  difficulty  which  everyone,  I  suppose,  in 
proportion  to  the  humanity  of  his  disposition,  feels.  The 
various  expedients  which  have  been  suggested  for  relieving 
it  do  not,  I  confess,  bring  much  help  to  my  mind.  I  can 
neither  persuade  myself,  with  the  critics,  that  the  com- 
mand was  not  really  given,  nor  can  I  rid  my  mind  of  the 
sense  of  awfulness  in  connection  with  it.  One  thing, 
however,  I  do  see,  that  the  judgment  was  not  an  arbi- 
trary one,  but  was  connected  with  a  moral  state.  It  had 
a  moral  basis.  If  the  land  was  already  in  the  days  of 
Abraham  promised  to  his  descendants  (Gen.  xii.  7 ;  xv.  7, 
18  ;  xvii.  8),  this  was  not  without  regard  to  the  character 
of  the  inhabitants.  The  fulfilment  is  delayed  to  a  later 
time,  "  for  the  iniquity  of  the  Amorite  is  not  yet  full " 
(Gen.  xv.  16).  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  already  in  that  age 
furnished  examples  of  the  growing  wickedness  of  the  land 
(Gen.  xiii.  14-18,  xviii.  20,  xix.).  The  vileness  of  the  in- 
habitants was  such  that  in  the  days  of  Moses  the  land 
"spued"  them  out  (Lev.  xviii.  24-30).  Their  transgres- 
sions are  dwelt  on  in  Deut.  xii.  29-32.  Corruption,  in 
short,  had  eaten  into  the  core  of  this  people.  What  was 
to  be  done  with  them  ?  When  the  ancient  world  had 
become  similarly  corrupt,  God  destroyed  it  by  a  flood 
(Gen.  vi.  5-8,  11-13).  When  the  Canaanites  had  filled 
up  the  cup  of  their  iniquity  He  gave  them  over  to  the 
sword   of  the    Israelites.     "  After  all,"    as  Ottley   says, 

239 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

quoting  Westcott,  "the  Canaanites  were  put  under  the 
ban,  'not  for  false  belief,  but  for  vile  actions.'  "*  Nor 
was  there  any  partiality  in  this.  As  I  have  said  in  my 
Problem  of  the  Old  Testament,  "The  sword  of  the  Israelite 
is,  after  all,  only  a  more  acute  form  of  the  problem  that 
meets  us  in  the  providential  employment  of  the  sword  of 
the  Assyrian,  the  Chaldean,  or  Roman  to  inflict  the  judg- 
ment of  God  on  Israel  itself"  (pp.  471-2). 

If  the  difficulty  is  acute  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanites, 
we  have  to  remember  that  this  case,  on  account  of  its 
special  aggravations,  stands  all  but  alone.  Though 
belonging  to  a  dispensation  of  severity,  under  which 
"every  transgression  and  disobedience  received  a  just 
recompense  of  reward  "  (Heb.  ii.  2),  yet,  judged  of  as  a 
whole,  and  in  its  prevailing  spirit, 

THE   LAW  OF   MOSES   IS   NOT   UNMERCIFUL. 

It  is  the  very  opposite.  A  spirit  of  humanity  breathes 
through  it  such  as  is  not  met  with  in  any  other  ancient 
code.  Its  laws  of  warfare  even  have  many  humane  and 
considerate  provisions  (Deut.  xii.).  They  give  no  sanction 
to  the  dreadful  barbarities  and  tortures — the  impalings, 
flayings,  blindings,  mutilations,  &c. — of  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  conquerors. t  In  besieging  a  city  the  very 
fruit  trees  are  to  be  spared  (Deut.  xii.  19-20).  Captive 
women  are  to  be  delicately  treated  (Deut.  xxi.  10-14). 
The  poor,  the  widow,  the  fatherless,  the  stranger,  the 
homeless,  the  distressed,  are  Jehovah's  special  care,  and 

*  Aspects  o/O.T.,  p.  179. 

t  David's  treatment  of  the  Moabites  (2  Samuel  viii.  2)  and  Ammon- 
ites (2  Samuel  xii.  31)  -in  this  case,  under  great  provocation — and 
Amaziah's  of  theEdomites  (2  Chron.  xxv.  12)  are  not  to  be  approved. 
For  another  spirit  cf.  2  Chron.  xxv.  3,  4— the  law;  2  Kings  vi.  21- 
23 — the  prophets.  The  severe  treatment  of  Adonibezek  in  Judges  i. 
6  is  somewhat  different ;  it  was  (as  he  acknowledged,  v.  7)  a  not 
unrighteous  retribution  for  his  own  habitual  cruelty. 

240 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

His  law  is  full  of  provisions  for  them  (Cf.  Ex.  xxii.  21-27, 
xxiii.  9-12,  Deut.  xi.  jff,  xxiv.  14-22,  &c).  Private  ill- 
will  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  enter  into  the  treatment  of  an 
enemy  (Ex.  xxiii.  4,  5  ;  Deut.  xxii.  1-4). 

An  illustration  may  be  taken  from  the  laws  on 

BOND-SERVICE, 

which  are  often  spoken  of  as  a  dark  spot  in  the  Hebrew 
legislation.  The  Mosaic  law  did  not  establish  bond  service. 
It  accepted  it  as  an  existing  usage,  labouring  to  the  ut- 
most to  reduce,  and,  as  far  as  that  was  practicable,  to 
abolish  the  evils  connected  with  it.  If  from  temporary 
causes  a  Hebrew  lost  the  use  of  his  freedom,  the  right  to 
it  was  not  thereby  destroyed.  It  returned  to  him  at  the 
beginning  of  the  seventh  year  (Ex.  xxi.  2  ;  Lev.  xxv.  39$). 
A  law  cannot  be  regarded  as  favourable  to  slavery  which 
makes  man-stealing  a  crime,  punishable  by  death  (Ex. 
xxi.  16),  and  which  enacts  that  a  fugitive  slave,  taking 
refuge  in  Israel  from  his  heathen  master,  is  not  to  be 
delivered  back  to  him,  but  is  to  be  permitted  to  reside 
where  he  will  in  the  land  (Deut.  xxiii.  15,  16).  Bonds- 
men, both  Hebrew  and  non-Israelite,  were  incorporated 
as  part  of  the  nation,  had  legal  rights,  sat  with  the  other 
members  of  the  family  at  the  board  of  the  passover,  took 
part  in  all  religious  festivals,  and  had  secured  to  them  the 
privilege  of  the  Sabbath  rest.  The  masterwas  responsible 
for  the  treatment  of  his  bondsman  ;  and,  if  he  injured  him, 
even  to  the  extent  of  smiting  out  a  tooth,  the  bondsman 
thereby  regained  his  freedom  (Ex.  xxi.  26,  27).  Humanity 
and  kindness  are  constantly  inculcated.  When  the  He- 
brew bondsman  went  out  in  the  seventh  year,  he  was  to 
go  forth  loaded  with  presents.     The  one 

SEEMING    EXCEPTION 

is  Ex.  xxi.  20 — the  passage  about  the  bondsman  dying 
under  chastisement.     This,  however,  must  be  taken  in 

241  R 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

its  connection  with  preceding  laws.  It  certainly  gives  no 
sanction  to  the  master  to  endanger  his  servant's  life.  The 
question  is  one  of  criminal  jurisprudence.  The  case  is 
presumed  to  be  one  of  bona  fide  chastisement  with  the  rod, 
and  murderous  intent,  if  present,  had  to  be  proved.  If 
the  slave  died  under  the  master's  hand  such  intent — at 
least,  sinful  excess  of  anger — was  held  to  be  proved,  and 
the  master  was  "  surely  punished  " ;  if  he  did  not,  even 
though  he  died  afterwards,  the  master  received  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt,  and  escaped  with  a  fine  of  money.  The 
obvious  aim  of  the  law  is  not  to  place  the  bondsman  at 
the  master's  mercy,  but  to  restrict  the  master's  power  over 
him.  Ancient  law  recognised  no  restriction. 
The  whole  design  of  the  law,  in  one  word,  was 

TO   MAKE    MEN    HOLY 

as  God  was  holy  (Ex.  xix.  6,  Lev.  xix.  2).  It  was  based 
on  a  moral  code  which,  as  Jesus  says,  had  for  its  two 
great  principles,  love  to  God  and  love  to  one's  neighbour 
(Matt.  xxii.  36-40).  On  this  moral  law  was  built  the 
covenant  between  God  and  Israel.  The  tables  of  stone 
on  which  it  was  written — "  the  tables  of  the  testimony  " 
(Ex.  xxxii.  15) — were  the  only  objects  in  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  in  Israel's  holiest  place.*  So  far  as  the  law 
mirrors  it,  the  religion  of  Israel  is  ethical  in  its  inmost 
fibre. 

I  need  not  delay  long  on  the  ethical  conceptions  of  the 

PROPHETS  AND   PSALMS, 

for  the  elevated  moral  strain  of  these  is  commonly 
admitted.  The  critics  in  the  main  are  with  us  here,  for, 
according  to  them,  it  was  the  prophets  who  first  gave  a 
perfectly  ethical  character  to  Israel's  religion.  The 
prophets    are    nothing    if   they    are    not    preachers   of 

*  See  my  Problem  of  the  0.  T.,  p.  48. 

243 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

righteousness.  "  Cease  to  do  evil  ;  learn  to  do  well " 
(Is.  i.  17).  "  He  hath  showed  thee,  O  man,  what  is 
good,  and  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to 
do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy 
God  "  (Mic.  vi.  8).  The  Psalms  in  every  line  express 
an  abhorrence  of  evil,  and  love  of  truth,  righteousness, 
and  mercy.  "Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the 
Lord  ?  .  .  .  He  that  hath  clean  hands  and  a  pure 
heart"  (Ps.  xxiv.  3,  4;  Cf.  Ps.  i.,  xv.,  &c).  "Behold, 
thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts.  .  .  .  Create 
in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  me  "  (Ps.  li.  6-10).  The  Book  of  Proverbs  is  a 
vade  mecum  to  a  straight,  pure,  virtuous  life.  He  who 
guides  himself  by  its  wisdom  will  not  go  astray,  but  will 
find  its  counsels  profitable  for  the  life  that  now  is,  as  well 
as  for  that  which  is  to  come  (Prov.  iv.  7-9 ;  1  Tim.  iv.  8). 
The  one  point  on  which  a  caveat  may  be  raised  here 
is  in  regard  to 

THE   IMPRECATORY   PSALMS. 

Here,  indeed,  a  note  is  heard  which  belongs  to  an  older 
dispensation,  and  which  Christians,  who  have  learned  a 
higher  lesson  in  the  school  of  Jesus,  cannot  ordinarily 
imitate.  If  the  frequent  prayers  for  the  destruction  of 
enemies  in  the  Psalms  were  the  expression  of  private 
revengefulness  or  hatred,  they  could  not,  of  course,  under 
any  dispensation,  be  defended.  But  that,  very  plainly,  is 
not  their  real  nature.  The  spirit  of  private  revengefulness 
is  as  heartily  condemned  in  the  Old  Testament  as  in  the 
New  (Cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  4,  5  ;  Ps.  vii.  4).  It  is  proud  and 
triumphant  wickedness,  enmity  to  God  and  to  His  cause 
and  people,  which  is  the  subject  of  these  denunciations, 
prayers,  and  imprecations  of  doom.  Let  anyone  read 
such  Psalms  as  the  4th,  7th,  gth,  10th,  12th,  &c,  and  see 
if  there  is  not  a  very  real  sense  in  which  he  can  even  yet 
sometimes  share  in  them  ? 

243 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

IV. 

With  what  grace  shall  I  now  speak  of  defending  the 
ethical  teaching 

OF  JESUS   AND    HIS   RELIGION, 

as  that  is  exhibited  in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  ? 
Where  shall  we  look  for  purity  like  His,  which  descends 
into  the  inmost  thoughts  of  the  heart,  and  forbids  even 
the  faintest  uprisings  of  unholy  passion  and  desire  (Matt. 
v.  22,  28,  &c.)  ?  Where  shall  we  find  the  inculcation  of 
every  virtue — of  everything  true,  honourable,  pure,  lovely, 
of  good  report  (Phil.  iv.  8) — earnest,  repeated,  continuous, 
as  we  do  in  the  apostolic  writings  ?  What  can  match  the 
Apostle's  great  hymn  on  love  in  1  Cor.  xiii.  ?  How 
beautiful  the  cluster  he  presents  of  "  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit"  in  Gal.  v.  22,  23 — ''love,  joy,  peace,  longsuffer- 
ing,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance  "  ; 
and  how  foul  the  catalogue  of  the  "  works  of  the  flesh  " 
to  which  he  opposes  it  (Gal.  vi.  19-21).  How  com- 
prehensively he  argues  :  "  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his 
neighbour ;  love,  therefore,  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  " 
(Rom.  xii.  10).  How  strenuously  he  exhorts  to  the 
fulfilling  of  all  relative  duties  (Eph.  v.  22  ff.,  vi.  1-9  ;  Col. 
iii.  i&ff.  iv.  1).  How  practical  his  everyday  teaching: 
"  Let  him  that  stole  steal  no  more  "  (Eph.  iv.  28)  ;  "  If 
any  will  not  work,  neither  let  him  eat "  (2  Thess.  iii.  10)  ; 
"  Denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live 
soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this  present  world " 
(Titus  ii.  12),  &c. 
Alike  with  Jesus  and  His  Apostles,  the  supreme 

TEST  OF   DISCIPLESHIP 

is  the  doing  of  good  works,  the  bringing  forth  of  fruit 
unto  holiness,  the  dying  to  sin  and  living  to  righteousness 
(Matt.  v.  16 ;  vii.  ziff;  John  xv.  8 ;  Rom.  vi.  22 ;  Titus  iii. 

244 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

8,  &c).  The  whole  end  of  redemption  is  that,  being 
redeemed  from  all  iniquity,  God's  people  should  be  holy 
(Rom.  vi.  6  ;  viii.  3, 4  ;  Gal.  i.  4 ;  Tit.  iii.  14  ;  1  Pet.  i.  14-24, 
&c). 

How  gross  a  libel  on  Christianity  it  is  to  represent  it, 
as  is  sometimes  done,  as  immoral  in  character  and  tendency, 
must  already  be  evident  from  the  above.  Confirmation, 
however,  if  that  is  needed,  may  be  drawn  from 

THE   MOUTH   OF   THE   ADVERSARY 

himself.  Mr.  Blatchford's  book,  God  and  My  Neighbour, 
is,  in  intention,  an  attack  on  Christianity  and  the  Bible. 
The  impression  I  have  formed  in  reading  it  is  that  Mr. 
Blatchford  does  not  realise  how  much  he  himself  owes  to 
Christ  and  His  ideals.  He  vehemently  assails  Christian- 
ity ;  but  on  what  grounds  ?  Paradoxical  as  it  may  seem, 
chiefly  on  the  ground  that  Christian  society  fails  to  realise 
the  ideals  of  its  professed  Master.  His  picture  of 
Christian  society  as  chiefly  a  collection  of  shams, 
hypocrisies,  self-indulgences,  and  vices  is,  no  doubt, 
frightfully  overdrawn.  But  let  it  pass,  and  see  what  he 
makes  of  it. 

Here  are  a  few  sentences : — 

"  As  London  is,  so  is  England.  This  is  a  Christian 
country.  What  would  Christ  think  of  Park-lane,  and 
the  slums,  and  the  hooligans  ?  What  would  He  think  of 
the  Stock  Exchange,  and  the  Music  Hall,  and  the  race- 
course ?     What  would  He  think  of  our  national  ideals  ?  " 

"  Pausing  again,  over  against  Exeter  Hall,  I  mentally 
apostrophise  the  Christian  British  people.  '  Ladies  and 
gentlemen,'  I  say,  '  you  are  Christian  in  name,  but  I  dis- 
cern little  of  Christ  in  your  ideals,  your  institutions,  or 
your  daily  lives.  You  are  a  mercenary,  self-indulgent, 
frivolous,  boastful,  blood-guilty  mob  of  heathen.' 

"  If  to  praise  Christ  in  words,  and  deny  Him  in  deeds, 
be  Christianity,  then  London  is   a  Christian  city,   and 

245 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

England  is  a  Christian  nation.  For  it  is  very  evident 
that  our  common  English  ideals  are  anti-Christian,  and 
that  our  commercial,  foreign,  and  social  affairs  are  run 
on  anti-Christian  lines  "  (Preface). 

Once  more :  "  Is  Christianity  the  rule  of  life  in 
America  and  Europe  ?  Are  the  masses  of  people  who 
accept  it  peaceful,  virtuous,  chaste,  spiritually  minded, 
prosperous,  happy  ?  Are  their  national  laws  based  on 
its  ethics  ?  Are  their  international  politics  guided  by 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  ?  .  .  .  From  Glasgow  to 
Johannesburg,  from  Bombay  to  San  Francisco,  is  God 
or  Mammon  king  ?     ..."     (p.  166,  Popular  Edition). 

What,  now,  does  all  this  mean,  I  would  ask,  if  not  that 
the  sin  of  Christendom  is  that  it  is  not  obeying  the  pre- 
cepts of  Christ  its  Master,  who  is  still  held  up  as 

THE   IDEAL 

to  be  obeyed  ?  It  is  His  teaching,  His  ethics,  His 
religion,  which  yield  the  standard  by  which  the  Christian 
peoples  are  judged  and  condemned.  They  ought  to  be 
living  in  accordance  with  Christ's  teaching,  but  are  not. 
If  they  did,  it  is  implied,  they  would  be  "  peaceful, 
virtuous,  chaste,  spiritually  minded,  prosperous,  happy." 
Was  there  ever  so  strange  an  indictment  against  a 
religion  before  ?  "  If  to  praise  Christ  in  words,  and  deny 
Him  in  deeds  is  Christianity,  then  London  is  a  Christian 
city,"  &c. !  But  who  will  endorse  this  as  a  definition  of 
Christianity  ?  And  if  Christianity  is  not  this,  but  the 
opposite  of  this,  what  do  we  come  to  but  that  it  is  the 
purest  and  best  religion  the  world  has  yet  seen?  Christ 
is  to-day  the  conscience  of  humanity.  He  is  the  touch- 
stone, even  for  Mr.  Blatchford,  of  what  is  good  and 
evil  ! 

The  same  fallacy  runs  through  the  whole  of  this 
singular  book.     On  a  later  page  (p.  197)  we  have  drawn 

246 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

out   the  qualities   of  "a  really    humane    and    civilised 
nation."     In 

SUCH   A   NATION 

there  should  be  no  such  thing  as  poverty,  as  ignorance,  as 
crime,  as  idleness,  as  war,  as  slavery,  as  hate,  as  envy,  as 
pride,  as  greed,  as  gluttony,  as  vice.  But,  the  author 
says,  "  This  is  not  a  humane  and  civilised  nation,  and 
never  will  be  while  it  accepts  Christianity  as  its  religion." 
He  adds:  "These  are  my  reasons  for  opposing  Chris- 
tianity." But  who,  with  the  least  sense  of  fairness,  does 
not  see  that  the  things  he  contends  for  are  the  very  things 
which  Christianity  is  constantly  inculcating  ?  These  are 
Christian  virtues.  In  the  Christian  ideal  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  every  one  of  the  things  here  contended  for  is 
embraced.  Nay,  in  opposing  Christianity,  Mr.  Blatch- 
ford  is  opposing  the  only  agency  that  can  produce  them. 
Mr.  Blatchford's  reply  to  all  this  is  that,  however 
beautiful  Christianity  (ethically)  may  be  in  theory,  it  is 
a  failure  in  practice.  It  is,  therefore,  not  Divine  (p.  166). 
As  will  be  seen  later,  it  is  far  from  true  that  Christianity 
is  a  failure  in  the  sense  intended.  But  one  thing  perfectly 
clear  is,  that,  where  Christianity  fails,  Mr.  Blatchford's 
scheme — if  scheme  it  can  be  called — 

WILL    NOT   SUCCEED. 

In  the  nature  of  things  it  cannot.  Christianity  holds  up 
lofty  ideals.  But  it  does  not  stop  there.  It  nourishes 
the  sense  of  obligation  and  responsibility,  and  furnishes 
motives  and  aids  adequate  to  produce  the  results  it  aims 
at.  It  is  "  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  "  (Rom.  i. 
16).  Mr.  Blatchford  has  nothing  of  the  kind  to  offer. 
On  the  contrary,  he  destroys  the  very  possibility  of  the 
realisation  of  his  own  ideals  by  his  audacious  denial  of 
human  freedom  and  accountability.  Man,  he  glories  to 
teach,  is  not  a  free  agent,  but  a  machine.      He  is  what 

247 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

heredity  and  circumstances  have  made  him.  He  is  not  to 
blame  for  his  wrong-doing.  He  cannot  sin  against  God. 
I  do  not  discuss  this  theory,  uncompromisingly  expounded 
in  his  chapter  on  "  Determinism."  I  only  point  out  the 
folly  of  seeking  an  ethical  millennium  along  lines  that  do 
away  with  ethical  conduct  altogether. 

It  is  indeed  a  singular  confusion  when  men  oppose  the 
service  of  God  to 

THE   SERVICE   OF   HUMANITY  J 

when  "  God  and  my  neighbour  "  becomes  "  God  or  my 
neighbour " — which  is  pretty  much  Mr.  Blatchford's 
point  of  view.  What  reader  of  the  Bible  does  not  know 
that  the  service  of  God  includes  service  of  my  neighbour  ? 
In  Law,  Prophets,  Psalms,  Proverbs,  Gospels,  Epistles, 
love  of  the  neighbour  is  never  left  out.  It  is  made  the 
chief  part  of  practical  religion.  "  Is  not  this  the  fast  that 
I  have  chosen  ?  to  loose  the  bands  of  wickedness,  to  undo 
the  bands  of  the  yoke  .  .  .  ?  Is  it  not  to  deal  thy 
bread  to  the  hungry,  and  to  bring  the  poor  that  are  cast 
out  to  thy  house,  &c.  ?  "  (Is.  lviii.  6,  7).  "  Whoso  hath 
the  world's  goods,  and  beholdeth  his  brother  in  need,  and 
shutteth  up  his  compassion  from  him,  how  doth  the  love 
of  God  abide  in  him  ?  (1  John  iii.  17).  "  Pure  religion 
and  undefiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is,  to  visit  the 
fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  him- 
self unspotted  from  the  world  "  (J as.  i.  27;  Cf.  ii.  15,  16). 
Jesus  supremely  inculcates  love  of  the  neighbour — who 
can  forget  the  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan  ?  (Luke  x. 
25-37) — even  of  the  enemy  (Matt.  v.  43-48  ;  Cf.  Rom.  xii. 
20).  Only,  where  secular  ethics  would  fain  divorce  these 
two  things,  and  make  love  of  the  neighbour  independent 
of  religion,  the  Bible  connects  them,  and  pours  into  the 
earthly  duty  the  whole  force  of  the  higher  motive  (Matt, 
xxii.  36-40).  Separated  from  its  true  fountain  in  the  love 
of  God,  the  love  of  humanity  dries  up  and  dies.     History 

248 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

is  the  proof  of  the  intimate  relation  of  the  two,  as  will 
afterwards  be  shown. 

V. 

The  morality  of  Christianity  has  been  assailed  on 
various  other  grounds.  The  charge,  e.g.,  has  sometimes 
been  brought  against  it  that,  while  praiseworthy  up  to 
a  certain  point,  the  ideals  of  Jesus  are 

NARROW   AND   LIMITED 

in  their  outlook.  F.  D.  Strauss  may  be  the  mouthpiece 
here.  In  the  closing  paragraphs  of  his  New  Life  of  Jesus 
(1864)  he  says  :  "  The  life  of  man  in  the  family  retreats 
into  the  background  with  this  Teacher,  who  himself  was 
without  a  family.  His  relationship  towards  the  State 
appears  a  purely  passive  one.  He  is  averse  to  acquisition 
of  property,  not  merely  for  Himself  because  of  His  calling, 
but  He  is  also  visibly  disinclined  to  it ;  and  all  that  con- 
cerns art  and  the  beautiful  enjoyment  of  life  remains 
completely  outside  of  His  circle  of  vision."*  The  one 
thing  true  in  this  objection  is  that  in  His 

INTENSELY   COMPRESSED 

public  life,  Jesus  did  not  concern  Himself  in  His  teaching 
with  education,  art,  politics,  science,  trade,  and  a 
thousand  other  human  interests  in  themselves  most 
legitimate.  He  had  infinitely  greater  things  to  occupy 
His  mind;  an  infinitely  greater  work  to  do;  infinitely 
greater  truths  to  teach  a  world  lost  to  the  knowledge  of 
God  and  of  the  way  of  eternal  life.  In  comparison  with 
the  work  the  Father  had  given  Him  to  do — the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  the  founding  of  the   Kingdom  of  God, 

"""Similar  objections  are  urged  by  Mr.  J.  S.  Mill,  in  his  essay  on 
Liberty,  and  latterly  by  Mazzini  {Essays,  v.  p.  363).  See  remarks  on 
these  writers  by  Rev.  D.  S.  Cairns,  MA.,  in  his  volume,  Christianity 
and  the  Modern  World,  Ch.  iv. 

249 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

the  imparting  of  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings,  the 
restoring  of  lost  men  to  the  love  and  fellowship  of  their 
Heavenly  Father — all  merely  secular  interests  paled  into 
insignificance.  "  Man,  who  made  me  a  judge  or  a 
divider  over  you  ?  "  was  His  reproof  to  one  who  wished 
Him  to  interfere  in  a  question  of  inheritance  (Luke  xii. 
14).  His  life  was  full  of  sacrifice,  and  He  knew  that  a 
Cross  awaited  Him  at  the  end.  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be 
baptised  with  ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accom- 
plished!" (Luke  xii.  50).  What  sort  of  mind  is  it  that 
can  combine  the  thought  of  Jesus — these  momentous 
interests  weighing  hourly  on  His  spirit — with  the  idea  of 
His  giving  little  parlour  or  lecture-hall  discourses  on 
poetry,  painting,  music,  political  economy,  the  best 
methods  of  education,  or,  say,  of  agriculture !  The  idea 
is  preposterous. 
Yet  it  would  be 

A  TOTALLY   FALSE   INFERENCE 

from  these  facts  to  assume  that  Jesus  Himself  meant  to 
belittle  the  importance  of  such  matters  in  their  own  place, 
or  that  His  religion  is  hostile  to  their  cultivation  or 
development.  The  very  opposite  is  the  case.  One  might 
ask,  indeed — What  kind  of  government  was  there  in 
Christ's  time,  what  sort  of  education,  what  forms  of  art, 
what  species  of  science,  of  which  One  such  as  He  could 
be  expected  to  approve  ?  Jesus  came  assuredly  to  make 
all  things  new  in  these  as  in  every  other  department  of 
life  ;  to  reconstitute  society,  from  top  to  bottom,  on  new 
bases.  His  religion,  e.g.,  strikes  in  its  fundamental  ideas 
at  slavery,  but  He  did  not  therefore  begin  a  political 
crusade  against  slavery  as  existing  in  His  time.  Christ's 
teachings  embody 

DEEP,    ENDURING    PRINCIPLES, 

set  forth  grand  master  truths,  occupy  themselves  with 

250 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

the  eternal,  not  with  that  which  is  simply  temporal.  It 
is  this  which  gives  Christ's  words  weight.  Each  age  as 
it  comes  round  finds  them  fruitful  in  applications  to  itself. 
Jesus  commits  Himself  to  no  one  side  in  party  politics  ; 
to  no  one  denomination  or  party  in  the  Church  ;  to  no 
one  form  of  Church  government  or  action  exclusively  ; 
to  no  one  mode  of  social  organisation  ;  to  no  one  solution 
of  the  questions  of  capital  and  labour,  of  rulers  and 
subjects,  of  rich  and  poor.  The  reason  is  that  the 
solution  of  these  questions  proper  to  one  age  or  stage  of 
society  might  not  be  the  solution  proper  to  another  ;  and 
Christ  is  not  the  teacher  of  one  age  only,  else  His  words, 
like  those  of  all  other  teachers,  would  become  obsolete, 
but  the  teacher, 

OF   ALL   TIMES   AND  ALL  AGES. 

Hence  His  words  never  grow  old ;  never  are  left  behind 
in  the  world's  progress.* 

Yet  no  one,  reading  the  Gospels,  would  conclude  that 
because  of  this  Jesus  was  indifferent  to  the  beauty  of 
God's  world,  to  human  life  and  its  relationships,  to  the 
necessity  of  civil  government,  to  trade,  industry,  or  any 
of  the  ordinary  occupations  of  life.  As  I  have  written  in 
another  connection  :  "  The  world  to  Him  is 

god's  world,  not  the  devil's. 

He  has  the  deepest  feeling  for  its  beauty,  its  sacredness, 
the  interest  of  God  in  the  humblest  of  its  creatures ;  His 
parables  are  drawn  from  its  laws  ;  He  recognises  that  its 
institutions  are  the  expressions  of  a  divine  order.  The 
world  of  nature  and  society,  therefore,  in  all  the  wealth 
and  fulness  of  their  relations,  are  always  the  background 

*This  was  one  of  the  things  which  most  powerfully  impressed  the 
late  Prof.  Romanes.  "  It  becomes  most  remarkable,"  he  says,  "that 
in  literal  truth  there  is  no  reason  why  any  of  His  words  should  ever 
pass  away  in  the  sense  of  becoming  obsolete."  ( Thoughts  on  Religion^ 
pp.  157-8). 

251 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

of  His  picture.  We  see  this  in  His  parables,  which  have 
nothing  narrow  and  ascetic  about  them,  but  mirror  the 
life  of  humanity  in  its  amplest  breadth — the  sower,  shep- 
herd, merchant,  handicraftsman,  the  servants  with  their 
talents  (and  proving  faithful  and  unfaithful  in  the  use  of 
them),  the  builder,  the  vineyard-keeper,  weddings,  royal 
feasts,  &c."* 

STRANGE,   TRULY, 

that  any  should  think  Jesus  indifferent  to  beauty  in 
nature,  who  remember  His  words  on  the  lilies  of  the  field 
(Matt.  vii.  28,  29) ;  or  indifferent  to  beauty  of  thought,  or 
word,  or  act,  who  recall  His  appreciation  of  Mary's  deed  in 
breaking  the  costly  alabaster  box  of  spikenard  (Matt. 
xxvi.  6-13)  ;  or  indifferent  to  the  family,  who  think  of 
Him  as  one  to  whom  marriage  was  a  divine  institution  to 
be  jealously  guarded,  and  who  consecrated  it  by  His 
presence  and  blessing  (Matt.  xix.  3-9  ;  John  ii.  1-11),  to 
whom  human  paternity  was  but  an  image  of  the  divine 
Fatherhood  (Matt.  vii.  9-11),  and  who  took  the  little 
children  in  His  arms  and  blessed  them  (Matt.  xix.  13-15) ; 
or  indifferent  to  civil  government,  who  consider  that  He 
inculcated,  and  exemplified  in  practice,  the  duty  of  sub- 
mission to  lawful  authority  (Matt.  xxii.  19-21).  Jesus 
had  a  higher  ideal  than  national  "  patriotism,"  even  that 
of  a  universal  Kingdom  of  God.  Yet  He,  like  Paul,  had 
the  deepest  love  for  His  own  nation,  and  wept  at  the 
thought  of  its  coming  inevitable  woes  (Matt,  xxiii.  37  ; 
Luke  xix.  41,  42). 

Christ's  morality,  in  brief,  is 

NOT  ANTI-SOCIAL, 

and  His  religion  has  proved  to  be  in  history  a  constant 
source  of  inspiration  to  social  and  moral  progress — to  art, 
education,  science,  reforms,  refinement  of  life,  civil  order, 

*  Christian  View  of  God,  p.  357. 

252 


The  Bible  and  Ethics 

the  elevation  and  purification  of  political  ideas.  The 
proof  of  this  must  be  reserved  for  another  paper ;  but  it 
follows  from  the  very  nature  of  the  religion.  Christ's 
disciples  are  not  to  withdraw  from  the  world,  but  are  to 
live  in  it,  and  to  be  its  salt  and  light  (Matt.  v.  13,  14). 
Out  of  this  life  in  the  world,  in  obedience  to  Christ's 
ideals,  will  spring  a  new  type  of  marriage  relation,  of 
family  life,  of  relations  between  masters  and  servants,  of 
social  life  generally.  It  cannot  be  otherwise,  if  Christ's 
Kingdom  is  to  be  the  secretly  transforming  influence  He 
says  it  will  be.  Affection,  intelligence,  love  of  all  things 
pure  and  beautiful,  will  be  quickened ;  knowledge  of 
nature  will  be  sanctified,  and  science  be  pursued  in  a 
devout  and  reverent  spirit ;  order  and  industry  under 
righteous  government,  in  society,  will  lead  to  prosperity. 
The  love  of  knowledge  has  ever  attended  the  spread  of 
true  religion.  Strange  as  it  may  sound  to  many,  the  great 
discoverers  in  science  have  mostly  been  religious  men.* 


*See  the  striking  evidence  of  this  in  E.  Naville's  Modern  Physics. 
On  the  influence  of  Christianity  on  art,  there  is  an  interesting  supple- 
mentary chapter  in  Bruce's  Gesta  Christy  Second  Edition. 

253 


XI 

Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 


Discrepancies  and 
Difficulties 


MANY  find  a  chief  ground  of  objection  to  the  Bible 
in  the  "discrepancies"  and  "mistakes  "  in  which 
its  pages  are  alleged  to  abound.  To  read  some 
writers,  one  would  imagine  that  discrepancy  and  error 
were  the  chief  features  of  the  sacred  book.  There  is  a 
positive  delight  shown  often  in  hunting  up,  multiplying, 
and  mercilessly  exposing  these  supposed  mistakes  of  the 
Bible.  Delitzsch  speaks  of  the  Widerspruchsjagerei — the 
11  hunting  for  contradictions " — characteristic  of  the 
modern  critical  school. 

Some  of  the  alleged  discrepancies  are  as 

OLD   AS   THE    HILLS 

— Celsus,  e.g.,  serves  up  those  on  the  resurrection — others 
are  genuine  discoveries  of  the  modern  spirit.  Popular 
infidelity  willingly  appropriates  the  material  thus  pro- 
vided for  it  in  the  works  of  Christian  and  rationalistic 
writers,  and  thinks  that  thereby  the  Bible  is  effectually 
discredited. 

This  raises  at  once  the  question  which  troubles  so 
many  minds  as  to  whether  inspiration  is  bound  up  with 
what  is  called 

" INERRANCY " 

of  the  sacred  record — i.e.,  positive  and  absolute  accuracy 
in  even  the  minutest,    and  seemingly   most    unessential 

257  s 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

details  of  historical,  geographical,  and  chronological 
statements.  If,  it  is  argued,  the  Bible  is  an  inspired 
book,  must  it  not  be  free  from  error,  even  in  the  minutest 
degree,  in  outward  as  well  as  inward  things  ;  and  is  not 
this  involved  in  a  right  conception  of  its  infallibility 
as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  On  this  point  it  should 
be  frankly  recognised  that 

OPINIONS   DIFFER, 

and  to  some  extent  are  likely  always  to  differ,  among 
those  who  are  the  most  devoted  believers  in,  and 
defenders  of,  the  Bible  as,  through  and  through,  the  in- 
spired Word  of  God.  It  is  not  a  question,  really,  which 
arises  in  our  present  discussion,  for  the  issues  between 
the  defenders  and  the  assailants  of  the  Bible  at  the 
present  moment  are  not  of  the  minute  character  here 
described,  but  affect  the  claim  of  the  Bible  to  be  a 
veracious  record  of  the  history  of  God's  revelations,  and 
the  inspired  vehicle  of  His  message  of  salvation  to  man- 
kind, in  any  proper  sense  at  all. 

I  approach  the  subject  from  a  somewhat  different 
standpoint.  Without  attempting  to  adjudicate  between 
rival  theories  of  inspiration,  or  using  watchwords  like 
"  inerrancy,"  "  verbal  inspiration,"  "  infallibility,"  which 
might  breed  debate,  and  prejudice  my  treatment,  I  pro- 
pose to  offer  some  considerations  which  may  tend  to 
restore  confidence  in  the  Bible  as 

A    RELIABLE    BOOK, 

and,  by  removing  misconceptions,  may  incidentally 
throw  useful  light  on  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  itself.  I 
take  this  line,  because  I  am  persuaded  that  many  of  the 
disputes  on  inspiration  arise  from  misunderstandings 
between  the  parties-  which  a  more  careful  study  of  the 
facts  of  the  Bible  itself  would  do  much  to  clear  away. 

258 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

On  the  main  point,  I  would  only  record  my  own  convic- 
tion that  the  working  of  the  objection  from  "  discrep- 
ancies "  has  been  vastly  overdone.  What  continually 
impresses  me,  in  a  candid  survey  of  the  field  of  Scripture, 
is  not  the  amount  of  error  in  the  Bible,  but  how  surpris- 
ingly free  the  sacred  text  is,  judged  with  fairness,  from 
anything  that  can  be  described  as  demonstrable  contra- 
diction, or  historical  mistake.  This  of  itself,  if  it  can  be 
established,  may  be  felt  to  furnish  a  sufficiently  striking 
proof  of  inspiration. 

I. 

I  may  first 

CLEAR  THE   GROUND 

by  ruling  out  of  consideration  a  number  of  cases  covered 
by  principles  already  laid  down,  and  in  part  illustrated, 
in  previous  papers,  or  by  principles  which  are  in  them- 
selves obvious. 

Thus  it  is  freely  acknowledged,  and  is  beyond  dispute, 
that  the  books  of  the  Bible — especially  those  of  the  Old 
Testament — have  a  long  literary  history,  and,  though 
preserved  by  a  wonderful  providence  of  God  from 
destruction  or  fatal  corruption,  have  yet,  to  no  small 
extent,  undergone 

THE   VICISSITUDES 

to  which  all  works  frequently  transcribed,  and  handed 
down  in  more  or  less  imperfect  copies  are  liable.  Errors 
in  this  way  creep  into  the  text,  specially  into  names  and 
numbers;  and  changes  of  a  more  serious  kind  occasion- 
ally occur,  as  from  interpolation,  explanatory  annotation, 
editorial  revision  for  a  special  purpose  (e.g.,  temple  use  of 
psalms,  &c).  Such  causes  give  rise  to  difficulties,  which 
it  is  the  business  of  a  cautious  criticism  to  endeavour  to 
remove,  or  at  least  to  lessen.     In  the  New  Testament  the 

259 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

aids  to  textual  criticism  are  abundant.  In  the  Old 
Testament  they  are  much  less  so  (existing  MSS.  but 
represent  one  exemplar),  and  we  are  thrown  back  on 
internal  comparison  of  the  books,  or  comparison  with 
still  more  defective  versions,  or  on  conjecture. 

No  theory  of  inspiration  is  here  involved,  and  one  can 
readily  see  by  comparison  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and 
Kings  with  Chronicles,  how  many 

SEEMING   "  DISCREPANCIES," 

in  names,  numbers,  lists,  &c,  have  this  as  their  explana- 
tion. Thus,  in  2  Sam.  viii.  4  we  read  "  700  "  horsemen, 
where  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Chron.  xviii.  4  has 
"  7,000  "  ;  in  2  Sam.  x.  18,  again,  we  have  "700,"  where 

1  Chron.  xix.  18  has  "  7,000  "  ;  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8  we 
have  "  800  "  slain,  where  1  Chron.  xi.  11  has  "  300  "  (here 
also  the  words  in  2  Sam.,  A.  V.,  "  that  sat  in  the  seat "  are 
probably  a  corruption  for  the  "  Jashobeam  "  of  1  Chron. 
— See  R.V.)  ;  1  Kings  iv.  26  has  "  40,000  "  stalls,  where 

2  Chron.  ix.  25  has  the  more  likely  number  "  4,000." 
The  "  50,070  "  men  slain  at  Beth-shemesh,  1  Sam.  vi.  19, 
is  almost  certainly  a  corruption  of  the  same  order 
(Josephus  has  "  70 ") ;  and  there  are  numerous  other 
examples.  As  instance  of  changes  in  text,  accidental  or 
designed,  Ps.  xviii.  may  be  compared  in  its  two  versions 
in  the  Psalter  and  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.,  or  Ps.  xiv.  (Jehovistic) 
may  be  compared  with  Ps.  liii.  (Elohistic). 

Another  class  of  cases  of  "  discrepancies  "  which  may 
be  briefly  dismissed  are  those  which  arise,  not  from  the 
text  as  we  actually  have  it,  but  from  the  arbitrary  asser- 
tions and 

HYPOTHESES   OF   CRITICISM. 

The  number  of  these  "  discrepancies  "  is  legion,  but  they 
are  mostly  self-created. 

Thus,    we    ha.ve    "  contradictory    narratives    of    the 

260 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

... 

creation  "  in  Gen.  i.  and  ii.  But  this  depends  on  the 
critics'  way  of  looking  at  the  history.  The  two  narratives 
are  in  no  way  parallel.  The  first  gives  an  orderly 
account  of  the  creation  of  heaven  and  earth  ;  the  second 
is  not,  in  strictness,  an  account  of  the  creation  at  all  (it 
says  nothing  of  the  creation  of  heaven  or  earth,  or  of  the 
general  plant  creation),  but  has  for  its  object  to  show  how 
man  was  dealt  with  by  God  at  his  creation,  how  he  was 
placed  in  suitable  surroundings,  how  a  helpmeet  was  pro- 
vided for  him,  &c. ;  and  the  whole  material  is  grouped 
from  this  point  of  view.  In  the  Book  of  Genesis  itself 
the  narratives  are  connected  in  the  closest  way  (Gen.  ii. 
4)  without  the  least  sense  of  "  contradiction." 

A  favourite  method  is  to  divide  out  a  narrative  among  its 
several  assumed  authors  (J,  E,  P,  &c),  then,  treating 
each  part  as  complete,  to 

PIT  ONE   AGAINST  ANOTHER, 

and  mark  off  the  differences  between  them.  As  in  reality 
the  parts  of  the  narrative  are  closely  interrelated,  and  all 
are  needed  to  give  the  complete  story,  the  semblance  of 
contradiction  is  easily  produced.  Thus  the  P  writer  is 
supposed  to  "  know  nothing  "  of  a  "  fall  "  ;  yet,  as  Well- 
hausen  admits,  he  was  acquainted  with  the  J  narrative  of 
Gen.  iii.,  and  presupposes  it.*  There  is  alleged  to  be 
"  contradiction  "  between  J  and  P  as  to  the  duration  of 
the  flood ;  yet,  when  the  narrative  is  taken  as  a  whole, 
harmony,  not  discrepancy,  is  revealed.!  The  story  of 
Joseph  is  split  up  between  two  writers,  J  and  E,  who  are 
affirmed  to  give  discrepant  accounts  of  the  sale  of  Joseph, 
and  of  his  fortunes  in  Egypt.  But  the  ground  for  this 
discrepancy  disappears,  if  the  narrative  is  accepted  in  its 

*Hist.  of  Israel,  p.  310. 
'     tCf.  my  Problem  of  O.T.,  pp.  349-50.     The  J  and   P  parts   are 
throughout  complementary. 

26l 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

integrity.  Wonderful  things  are  made  of  the  story  of 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  Exodus,  of  the  story  of  the  mission 
of  the  spies,  of  the  account  of  the  rebellion  of  Korah. 
But  the  narratives  have  first  to  be  torn  to  pieces  before 
the  discrepancies  can  be  made  out.* 

Another  part  of  the  same  method  is  to  regard  all 
resembling  narratives,  especially  if  found  in  distinct 
"  sources,"  as 

"duplicates," 

and  to  evolve,  as  before,  "  contradictions "  between 
them.  Thus  Hagar's  flight,  Gen,  xvi.,  is  identified  with 
her  expulsion  by  Sarah,  ch.  xxi.  ;  Abraham's  denial  of  his 
wife  at  Egypt,  Gen.  xii.,  is  identified  with  his  repetition 
of  the  offence  at  Gerar,  ch.  xx.;  Jacob's  vision  at  Bethel, 
before  going  to  Paddan-Aram.,  Gen.  xxviii.  iq^,  is 
identified  with  God's  appearance  to  him  on  his  return, 
Gen.  xxxv.,  ff;  the  call  of  Moses  at  the  bush  in  Midian, 
Ex.  iii.  iff,  is  made  the  same  as  the  revelation  to  him  in 
Egypt,  ch.  vi.  2ff,  &c.  Yet  there  are  plain  indications  in 
the  narratives  themselves  that  the  incidents  mentioned 
are  distinct,  and,  generally,  the  later  is  seen  to  imply  the 
earlier.!  But  the  "contradictions"  of  time,  place,  and 
circumstance  fall,  if  the  incidents  are  not  the  same. 

I  do  not  need  to  repeat  what  was  said  in  a  previous 
paper  of  the  supposed 

SCIENTIFIC   "MISTAKES" 

of  the  Bible.  Defenders  and  impugners  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  record  alike  need  to  bear  in  mind  the  fact  that 
it  is  not  the  object  of  the  Bible  to  give  scientific  descrip- 
v  tions  of  events  in  a  form  anticipative  of  19th  or  20th 
century  discoveries.    Its  language  is  popular  in  character, 

*Cf.  Problem  of  O.T.  for  details,  pp.  354-59. 
tCf.  Problem  of  the  O.T.,  pp.  236^  361. 

262 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

in  accordance  with  the  standpoint  of  the  observer,  and 
the  state  of  knowledge  of  his  time ;  still,  as  was  before 
observed,  with  a  wonderful  freedom  from  positive  error. 
Talk,  therefore,  such  as  one  sometimes  hears,  about  the 
"  mistakes  of  Moses,"  is  wholly  irrelevant.  Such 
language  might  properly  be  used  if  it  were  the  Babylo- 
nian myth  of  the  creation — Tiamat  being  cut  in  two  by 
Merodach,  and  heaven  made  from  one-half  of  her, 
earth  from  the  other — that  was  being  dealt  with.  But 
the  Genesis  narrative,  in  its  monotheistic  grandeur,  and 
the  true  and  sublime  ideas  that  inspire  it,  is  above  all 
such  criticism.  Similarly  in  the  story  of  the  flood.  The 
language  employed  is  that  of  broad,  popular  description, 
as  the  catastrophe  might  appear  to  one  who  actually 
observed  it.  Beyond  declaring  the  destruction  of  the 
race  of  mankind,  there  is  no  attempt,  as  there  is  no  call, 
to  describe  scientifically  the  range  or  effects  of  the 
deluge. 


II. 

I  have  next  to  remark  that  very  many  alleged  "dis- 
crepancies "  and  "errors,"  not  falling  within  the  above 
classes,  are,  when  properly  examined,  found  to  be,  in 
reality, 

NO   DISCREPANCIES 

or  mistakes  at  all.  This  is  frequently  obvious  from  simple 
inspection  ;  it  is  sometimes  made  clear  by  the  progress  of 
discovery.  If  no  book  has  been  so  often  assailed  as  the 
Bible,  none  has  so  often  been  vindicated  from  charges 
brought  against  it.  Such,  e,g.,  are  the  Biblical  state- 
ments, formerly  referred  to,*  on  the  non-Semitic  character 
of  the  early  Babylonians,  on  the  priority  of  Babylonian  to 

*  Cf,  the  paper  on  Archaeology. 

363 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

Assyrian  civilisation,  on  the  Semitic  origin  of  Elam,  on 
the  power  of  the  Hittites,  on  Sargon  II.  and  his  siege  of 
Ashdod,  on  the  existence  of  Belshazzar,  on  the  governor- 
ship of  Quirinius,  &c. — all  now  corroborated  by  research 
and  scholarship.  Sargon  claims  in  his  inscription  to  be 
the  conqueror  of  Samaria,  but  the  impression  given  by  the 
Bible  narrative  (2  Kings  xvii.  3-6) — though  that  interpre- 
tation is  by  no  means  necessary — is  that  the  conqueror 
was  Shalmaneser.  Now  it  appears  that,  after  all,  Shal- 
maneser  was  probably  the  conqueror  of  Samaria.* 

I  take  an  example  of  "  discrepancy  "  cited  in  a  recent 
able  work  in  proof  that 

our  lord's  authority 

is  not  to  be  extended  to  His  statements  about  the  Old 
Testament.  "  Let  us  test  this,"  the  writer  says,  "by  a 
simple  case.  He  speaks  of  the  drought  in  the  days  of 
Elijah  as  lasting  three  years  and  six  months.  The  same 
statement  is  made  in  the  Epistle  of  James  (Luke  iv.  25  ; 
Jas.  vi.  17).  But  in  the  First  Book  of  Kings  we  are  told 
that  the  rain  came  '  in  the  third  year '  (1  Kings  xviii. 
1),  which  would  make  the  drought  about  two  years  and 
a-half,  possibly  less.  How  are  we  to  explain  the  dis- 
crepancy ?  "  Even  if,  as  the  author  supposes,  Jesus  was 
simply  following  here  a  current  Jewish  reckoning,!  it 
would  not  trouble  me,  for  such  cases  undoubtedly  occur 
(see  below).  But,  as  a  "  test "  case,  the  example  is 
unfortunate,  for  there  is  no  need  for  assuming  any 
discrepancy.  It  is  forgotten  that  in  Palestine  rain  is  not 
an  everyday  occurrence,  as  it  is  with  us.    The  ground  had 

*  Interpreter,  April,  1906,  p.  316. 

t  I  much  doubt  the  explanation  of  Plummer  and  others  that  "ever 
since  the  persecution  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  three  years  and 
a-half  (equals  42  months,  equals  1,260  days)  had  become  the  traditional 
duration  of  times  of  great  calamity." 

264 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

already  been  dry  for  six  months — since  the  previous  rainy 
season — when  Elijah  stayed  the  rain  by  his  word  at  the 
commencement  of  the  new  rainy  season.  If  the  cessation 
lasted  till  the  third  year  thereafter,  the  total  period  of 
drought  would  necessarily  be  about  three  years  and  six 
months.*  It  was  strictly  true,  therefore,  that,  as  Jesus 
said,  "  in  the  days  of  Elijah,"  "  the  heaven  was  shut  up 
three  years  and  six  months  "  (Luke  vi.  25). 
Another  instance, 

TYPICAL   OF   MANY, 

may  be  taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  critics  urge 
that  Deut.  x.  3,  according  to  which  Moses  himself 
made  the  ark  before  his  second  ascent  of  the  mount,  is  in 
palpable  contradiction  to  the  narrative  in  Exod.  xxvii.  iff, 
xxxvii.  iff,  where  we  are  told  that  Moses  received  elaborate 
instructions  for  the  making  of  the  ark  during  his  first 
sojourn  on  the  mount,  and  that  these  were  carried  out  by 
Bezaleel  after  his  second  descent.  There  is,  however,  no 
real  discrepancy  between  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  on 
the  matter.  Moses,  in  Deuteronomy,  at  the  distance  of 
forty  years,  and  in  the  freedom  of  hortatory  speech,  men- 
tions the  making  of  the  ark  as  a  receptacle  for  the  tables 
without  regard  to  chronology,  and  it  is  pedantic  to  under- 
stand him  otherwise.  Can  anyone  suppose,  in  view  of  the 
narrative  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  1-4,  which  Deuteronomy 
admittedly  follows,  that  the  writer  actually  intended  to 
convey  that  Moses  literally,  and  with  his  own  hands, 
constructed  an  ark  of  acacia  wood  in  the  interval  between 
his  receiving  the  command  to  hew  the  tables  (ver.    1) — 

*  "  It  is  certainly  correct,"  says  Huther,  "as  Benson  remarks,  that 
if  the  rain,  according  to  the  word  of  Elias,  was  stayed  at  the  beginning 
of  the  rainy  season,  and  it  again  began  to  rain  in  the  third  year  at 
the  end  of  the  summer  season,  the  drought  would  continue  in  all  three 
and  a-half  years,"  {Com.  on  James  V.,  17.)  Huther  himelf  prefers  to 
see  "error"  in  James. 

265 


The    Bible   Under  Trial 

itself  no  slight  work — and  his  rising  up  early  the   next 
morning  to  ascend  the  mount  (vers.  3,  4)  ?  My  imagination 
is  not  equal  to  the  effort.-* 
A  real  difficulty  lies  in  the 

LARGE   NUMBERS 

frequently  met  with  in  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament — 
in  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles.  Some  of  these 
may  be  accounted  for,  as  already  seen,  by  corruption  of 
the  numbers  ;  some  by  the  use  of  round  numbers  (see 
below),  and  of  large  totals  intended  to  convey  a  general 
idea  where  precise  enumeration  was  not  possible.  E.g., 
the  accounts  of  David's  census  of  Israel  and  Judah  in  2 
Sam.  xxiv.  and  1  Chron.  xxi.  are  evidently  taken  from 
the  same  original — yet  the  numbers  in  Samuel  (ver.  9)  are 
800,000  warriors  for  Israel  and  500,000  for  Judah ;  in 
Chronicles  (ver.  5)  1,100,000  for  Israel  and  470,000  for 
Judah.  One  is  tempted  here  to  suppose  corruption, 
as  in  so  many  places  elsewhere  ;  or  there  may  be  a 
designed  change  from  some  motive  not  known  to  us. 
Still,  the  enormous  totals  (Cf.  1  Kings  xii.  21  =  2  Chron. 
xi.  1;  2  Chron.  xiii.  3,  17;  xiv.  8,  9;  xvii,  14^;  xxvi. 
13,  &c.)  are  not  readily  explained,  and  the  expedients 
sometimes  suggested  for  reducing  the  numbers  have  not 
much  probability. 

Perhaps  the  best  defence  of  the  numbers  is  that  they 
are  uniformly  so  large.  Every  account  and  enumeration 
we  have  implies  a  population  of  unusual  density,  and 

VERY   LARGE    MUSTER-ROLLS 

of  the  males  fit  for  war.  It  is  remarkable  that  Dr. 
Flinders  Petrie,  in  his  Researches  in  Sinai,  while  advocat- 
ing a  method  of  reducing  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites  at 

*  F°r  similar  examples  see  Problem  of  O.T.,  pp.  278-9. 

266: 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

the  exodus  which  I  think  untenable,  yet  defends  in  the 
main  the  large  numbers  of  the  later  books,  especially  of 
Judges  (pp.  219-20).  He  upholds  the  figures  in  the  wars 
of  Barak  and  Gideon  (Judg.  iv.  viii.),  and  says  :  "The 
last  great  fight  before  the  monarchy,  the  civil  with 
Benjamin,  demands  a  roll-call  of  426,000  of  all   Israel. 

.  .  .  One  in  ten  of  Israel  are  said  to  have  been 
levied,  or  40,000,  to  fight  26,000  of  Benjamin.  The 
extermination  of  a  defeated  tribe  under  these  conditions 
is  not  surprising.  The  only  figures  that  we  need  set 
aside  are  those  of  the  22,000  and  18,000  Israelites  who 
were  slain  [yet  why,  in  so  fierce  a  war  of  extermination  ?] 

.  .  .  But  the  totals  of  men  involved,  and  the 
catastrophe  which  befell  the  tribe  are  not  surprising" 
(p.  220).* 

III. 

To  obtain  just  views  on  this  whole  subject,  and  per- 
ceive more  clearly 

ITS   RELATIONS   TO   INSPIRATION, 

we  need  to  go  a  little  deeper,  and  ask  ourselves  more 
distinctly  how  inspiration,  on  any  view  we  may  take  of  it, 
is  related  to  the  form  of  the  record  in  Holy  Scripture.  On 
this  point  a  good  deal  of  ambiguity  and  misunderstand- 
ing exists,  which  it  is  desirable,  if  possible,  to  remove. 

*Dr.  Petrie's  methods  are  somewhat  arbitrary,  but  his  general  con- 
clusions are  sound.  "  Now  we  have  seen,"  he  says,  "  how  much 
there  is  in  the  general  cry  about  the  great  exaggerations  of  the 
numbers  of  the  priestly  writer  in  Judges.  So  far  as  what  may  be 
called  national  documents  go,  there  is  nothing  impossible.  .  .  The 
question  of  the  setting  of  the  history,  of  the  editing  of  it,  and  the 
introduction  of  collateral  records  and  traditions,  is  quite  outside  of 
our  scope  here.  But  we  see  that  the  supposed  discredit  of  it  as  being 
radically  encumbered  with  exaggeration  is  quite  untrue,  and  that 
there  are  no  large  numbers  which  disagree  with  the  known  conditions 
of  the  history  "  (p.  220). 

267 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

The  phrase  "  verbal  inspiration  "  is  sometimes  under- 
stood as  if  it  were  equivalent  to  a  direct  or  mechanical 
"  dictation  "  of  the  very  words  of  inspired  Scripture  to 
its  several  authors.  Conclusions  are  then  drawn  from 
this  idea  by  opponents  which,  it  is  safe  to  say,  no  intel- 
ligent upholder  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  would  con- 
sent to  be  bound  by. 

I  myself,  partly  for  this  reason,  prefer  to  speak  of  a 

11  PLENARY  "    INSPIRATION 

— plenary  for  the  end  for  which  inspiration  is  given, 
that  is,  viewing  Scripture  as  a  whole,  the  imparting  in 
a  complete  and  infallible  way  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  great  subjects  of  God's  revelation.*  It  is  by  this  time 
a  commonplace  with  writers  on  inspiration  of  all  schools 
that  the  action  of  the  Spirit  does  not  suspend  or  annul 
the  natural  workings  of  the  human  faculties,  but  quickens, 
exalts,  and  uses  these  to  the  fullest  degree  in  the  com- 
munication, orally,  or  in  writing,  of  the  divine  message. 
The  books  of  the  Bible  show  as  clearly  the  marks  of  the 
individuality  and  genius  of  their  human  authors  as  they  do 
of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  expressed  through  them.  When 
we  trace  further  this  action  of  the  Spirit  in  relation  to 
the  form  of  the  record,  we  get  much  light  that  is  of  use 
to  us  on  the  subject  of  "  discrepancies." 

To  make  my  point  clear  at  once,  let  anyone  ask  him- 
self in  what  precise  sense  he  uses  the  phrase  "  verbal 
inspiration  "  in  regard  to 

THE   WORDS  OF  OUR   LORD. 

The  first  three  evangelists  have  a  great  deal  of  common 
matter,  and  report  in  many  places  the  same  sayings  and 

*I  say,  taking  Scripture  as  a  whole,  for  necessarily  the  various 
parts  of  Scripture  are  relative  to  the  age  and  stage  of  revelation  to 
which  they  belong,  and  the  earlier  parts  show  the  incompleteness  of 
the  earlier  stages. 

268 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

discourses  of  Jesus.  Yet,  as  everyone  knows,  while  they 
often  agree  verbally,  in  a  far  larger  number  of  cases  their 
reports  show  considerable  variation  of  expression.  It  is 
not  simply  that  one  report  is  longer  or  shorter  than 
another,  but,  while  the  idea  is  the  same,  the  words  used 
to  express  the  idea  are  often  widely  different. 

AS   INSTANCES, 

take  the  following  from  Matthew  and  Luke.  In  Matthew 
Jesus  says :  "  Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  reproach 
you,  and  persecute  you,  and  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you  falsely,  for  My  sake  "  (Matt.  v.  n).  Luke 
reports  the  same  saying:  "  Blessed  are  ye,  when 
men  shall  hate  you,  and  when  they  shall  separate 
you  [from  their  company] ,  and  reproach  you,  and  cast 
out  your  name  as  evil,  for  the  Son  of  Man's  sake  "  (Luke 
vi.  22).  Matthew  reads:  "And  be  not  afraid  of  them 
which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul ;  but 
rather  fear  Him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  body  and 
soul  in  hell.  Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farthing?  " 
&c.  (Matt.  x.  28,  29).  Luke  gives  this  saying:  "And  I 
say  unto  you  my  friends,  Be  not  afraid  of  them  which  kill 
the  body,  and  after  that  have  no  more  that  they  can  do. 
But  I  will  warn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear  ;  Fear  him,  which 
after  He  have  killed  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell ;  Yea,  I 
say  unto  you,  fear  Him.  Are  not  five  sparrows  sold  for 
two  farthings  ?  "  &c.  (Luke  xii.  5,  6).  Matthew  gives  the 
saying:  "  There  be  some  of  them  that  stand  here  which 
shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death  till  they  seethe  Son  of  Man 
coming  in  His  Kingdom  "  (Matt.  xvi.  28).  Mark  gives 
the  latter  part  of  this  utterance ;  "  Till  they  see  the 
Kingdom  of  God  come  with  power  "  (Mark  ix.  1),  and 
Luke  yet  more  simply :  "  Till  they  see  the  Kingdom  of 
God  "  (Luke  ix.  27)      So  constantly. 

269 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

Now  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  in  all  these  passages 
the  thought  or  meaning  is 

ABSOLUTELY  THE   SAME, 

but  it  is  just  as  obvious  that  the  form  of  expressing  the 
thought  varies,  and  that  Jesus  did  not  use  both  forms  of 
expression  at  one  and  the  same  time.  It  is  a  difference 
in  the  mode  of  reporting  the  same  thing.*  We  see  plainly, 
therefore,  that  it  is  the  thought  or  idea  about  which  in- 
spiration is  chiefly  concerned,  and  not  the  precise  words 
in  which  that  idea  is  conveyed,  though,  of  course,  in 
Christ's  case,  the  words  are  in  substance  the  same  also. 
"  Verbal  inspiration"  can  mean  here  only  that  the  words 
are  a  perfectly  accurate  medium  for  conveying  the  meaning 
intended ;  not  that  they  are  always  literally  and  exactly 
the  very  words  Christ  used,  in  the  precise  form  in  which 
He  used  them.  This  principle  of  itself  is  a  solvent  of 
many  of  the  alleged  discrepancies  in  the  Gospel,  e.g.,  in 
the  case  of  the  varying  forms  of  the  titles  on  the  Cross 
(Matt,  xxvii.  37  ;  Mark  xv.  26 ;  Luke  xxiii.  38 ;  John  xix. 

19). 

IV. 

A  quite  similar  lesson  is  taught  by  another  class   of 
phenomena  ;  I  refer  to  the 

QUOTATIONS   FROM   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

in  the  New.  Some  250  of  these  are  reckoned.!  There  is 
great  diversity  in  the  mode  of  quotation — sometimes 
more  exactly  in  agreement  with  the  Hebrew ;  sometimes 
in  freer  paraphrase,  or  with  unessential  modifications ;  in 

*  I  discard  the  idea  favoured  by  some  of  the  wilful  manipula- 
tion of  the  text  from  a  "tendency"  motive.  Cf.  Rev.  D.  Smith, 
The  Days  of  His  Flesh,  Introd.  p.  xxiii. 

t  If  repetitions  are  excluded,  the  number  is  reduced  to  about  136. 

270 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

the  great  majority  of  cases,  from  the  Greek  version  known 
as  the  Septuagint,  but  here  also  often  with  considerable 
liberty.  In  many  cases  the  Greek  version  is  followed 
where  it  deviates  from  the  Hebrew  in  important  respects. 
As  examples,  in  Matt.  ii.  5,  6,  "  And  thou  Bethlehem, 
land  of  Judah,"  &c,  the  differences  are  very  considerable 
both  from  the  Hebrew  and  from  the  Septuagint  (these 
have  "  Bethlehem  Ephrathah."  Cf.  Mic.  v.  2).  In  Matt, 
xii.  17-21  we  have,  with  other  changes,  the  adoption  of 
the  Septuagint  rendering,  "  In  His  name  shall  the 
Gentiles  hope,"  for  the  Hebrew,  "  The  isles  shall  wait 
for  His  law"  (Is.  xlii.  1-4).  In  Rom.  ix.  33  and  1  Pet. 
ii.  6,  the  Septuagint  is  followed  in  rendering  the  last 
clause  of  Is.  xxviii.  16,  "  Shall  not  be  put  to  shame," 
where  the  Hebrew  has  "  shall  not  make  haste."  To 
take  only  one  other  case.  In  Heb.  x.  5-7  the  Septuagint, 
as  usual  in  this  epistle,  is  followed,  even  in  the  rendering 
of  Ps.  xl.  6,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  where 
the  original  has,  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened  "  (digged). 
In  brief,  the  sacred  writers  took  their  quotations  from 
this  Greek  version  (the  one  familiar  to  their  readers), 
where  it  served  in 

ILLUSTRATION    OF   THEIR   MAIN    POINT, 

without  troubling  themselves,  except  in  special  cases,  with 
its  greater  or  less  precision  of  rendering  in  detail.  Inspira- 
tion, as  before,  shows  itself  concerned  with  the  thought, 
not  with  the  precise  form  of  words  used  to  express  it. 

An  older  writer,  Dr.  Patrick  Fairbairn,  has  some 
sensible  remarks  on  this  subject,  which  I  may  venture 
to  quote.  After  observing  that  "  in  none  of  the  cases 
are  we  presented  with  a  different  sense,  but  simply 
with  a  modified  representation  of  the  same  sense,"  he 
proceeds  :  "  It  is,  therefore,  a  groundless  and  unwarranted 
application  to  make  of  these  occasional  departures  from 
the  exact  import  of  the  original,  when  they  are  employed 

271 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

as  an  argument  against  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
Scripture.  .  .  .  Even  in  those  cases  in  which,  for 
anything  we  can  see,  a  closer  translation  would  have 
served  equally  well  the  purpose  of  the  writer,  it  may  have 
been  worthy  of  the  inspiring  Spirit,  and  perfectly  consis- 
tent with  the  fullest  inspiration  of  the  original  Scriptures, 
that  the  sense  should  be  given  in  a  free  current  translation. 
.  .  .  The  stress  occasionally  laid  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment upon  particular  words  in  passages  of  the  Old 
sufficiently  proves  what  a  value  attaches  to  the  very  form 
of  the  divine  communications.  ...  It  shows  that 
God's  words  are  pure  words,  and  that,  if  fairly  interpreted, 
they  cannot  be  too  closely  pressed.  But  in  other  cases, 
when  nothing  depended  upon  a  rigid  adherence  to  the 
letter,  the  practice  of  the  sacred  writers,  not  scrupulously 
to  stickle  about  this,  but  to  give  prominence  simply  to 
the  substance  of  the  revelation  is  fraught  with  an  impor- 
tant lesson,  since  it  teaches  us  that  the  letter  is  valuable 
only  for  the  truth  couched  in  it,  and  that  the  one  is  no 
further  prized  and  contended  for,  than  may  be  required 
for  the  exhibition  of  the  other."  * 

A  third  group  of  cases  of  interest  in  this  connection  are 
those  which  relate  to  the  use  of 

ROUND   AND   INDEFINITE   NUMBERS. 

Without  accepting  the  principle  of  systematised  numbers 
to  the  extent  to  which  some  would  carry  it,  we  must 
recognise  that  the  use  of  round  or  indefinite  numbers, 
where  the  precise  figure,  perhaps,  was  not  known,  is  a 
not  uncommon  fact  in  Scripture.  "  Forty  "  is  a  favourite 
round  number  of  this  kind,  as  seen,  e.g.,  from  its  frequent 
use  in  the  Book  of  Judges  (Judg.  iii.  n,  30  [40X2  --80]  ; 
v.  31 ;  viii.  28,  &c).  Where  it  is  intended  to  express  that 
the  whole  armed  force  of  the  nation  is  called  out,  or  that 
*  Hermeneutical  Manual,  pp.  412-14. 

272 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

an  army  is  half  destroyed,  large  round  numbers,  based  on 
census  lists,  or  current  enumerations,  are  employed. 
This  seems  the  simplest  way  of  explaining  such  very  large 
figures — which  it  is  impossible  to  take  literally — as  in  2 
Chron.  xiii.  3,  17. 

This  principle  rules  in  another  way — in  giving  a  cer- 
tain technical  or  artificial  form  to 

GENEALOGIES   AND   LISTS. 

Thus  the  list  of  the  seventy  souls  that  went  down  to 
Egypt  in  Gen.  xlvi.  8-27  (described  in  Ex.  i.  5  as  "  all 
the  souls  that  came  out  of  the  loins  of  Jacob")  embraces 
Jacob  himself,  Er  and  Onan,  who  died  in  Canaan,  repre- 
sented by  Hezron  and  Hamul  (ver.  12 ;  these  were 
born  in  Egypt),  and  Joseph's  two  sons,  expressly 
stated  to  have  been  born  in  Egypt  (ver.  27).  In 
our  Lord's  genealogy  in  Matt.  i.  the  names  are  given 
in  three  "  fourteens "  (ver.  17)  ;  yet,  to  make  the 
second  "  fourteen,"  three  names  of  kings  have  to  be 
omitted. 

A  chronological  difficulty  is  sometimes  found  in  Paul's 
statement  in  Acts  xiii.  20 :  "  After  that  He  gave  them 
judges,  about  the  space  of  450  years,  until  Samuel  the 
prophet  "  (A. V.),  which  conflicts  with  the  480  years  given 
in  1  Kings  vi.  1  as  the  period  from  the  Exodus  till  the 
founding  of  Solomon's  temple.  The  discrepancy  might, 
if  it  were  real,  be  solved  on  the  above  principle  of  the 
adoption  of  a  current  reckoning,  where  precise  enumera- 
tion is  not  intended.  In  reality,  the  difficulty  disappears 
with  the  true  reading  :  "  He  gave  them  their  land  for  an 
inheritance  for  about  450  years  ;  and  after  these  things 
He  gave  them  judges  until  Samuel  the  prophet " 
(R.V.).  The  allusion  in  the  passage  is  probably  to  the 
very  reckoning  in  1  Kings  vi.  1. 

273  T 


The    Bible   Under  Trial 
v. 

Let  me  now  take  a  class  of  cases  of  a  different  kind. 
Many  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  are 

COMPILATIONS  FROM  OLDER  RECORDS. 

They  use,  and  in  some  cases  embody,  materials  derived 
from  uninspired  sources — e.g.,  the  letters  of  the  Persian 
Kings  embodied  in  the  Book  of  Ezra,  portions  of  State 
chronicles,  genealogies,  tribal  lists,  &c. ;  but  they  also 
embody  older  prophetic  histories  and  biographies  (Cf.  I 
Chron.  xxix.  29 ;  2  Chron.  ix.  29  ;  xii.  15  ;  xiii.  22  ;  xxvi. 
22,  &c).  Some  of  these  documents  had  been  handed 
down  for  centuries,  and  doubtless  had  suffered  in  the 
usual  way  in  the  process  of  copying  and  transmission. 
What  relation  does  inspiration  sustain  to  such  materials  ? 
Is  its  function  ended  in  their  faithful  reproduction  and 
use  as  given,  for  the  purpose  intended  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  ?  Or  does  it  lie  with  inspiration  to  supply  all 
defects,  correct  all  corruptions  in  names  and  numbers, 
check  mistaken  readings,  and  the  like  ?  It  will  be  very 
difficult  to  maintain  that  it  does. 

Perhaps  an  illustration  from  Matthew  Henry,  whose 
devotion  to  Scripture,  even  in  its  letter,  will  not  be  gain- 
said, may  set  this  matter  in  a  clearer  light.  He  is  speak- 
ing of 

THE  GENEALOGIES  IN  CHRONICLES, 

with  special  reference  to  1  Chron.  viii.  1-32.  "As  to 
the  difficulties,"  he  says,  that  occur  in  this  and  the 
foregoing  genealogies  we  need  not  perplex  ourselves.  I 
presume  Ezra  took  them  as  he  found  them  in  the  books 
of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  (chap.  ix.  1),  according 
as  they  were  given  in  by  the  several  tribes,  each  observing 
what   method   they   thought   fit.      Hence   some  ascend, 

274 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

others  descend ;  some  have  numbers  affixed,  others 
places ;  some  have  historical  remarks  intermixed,  others 
have  not ;  some  are  shorter,  others  longer ;  some  agree 
with  other  records,  others  differ  ;  some,  it  is  likely,  were 
torn,  erased,  and  blotted,  others  more  legible.  Those  of 
Dan  and  Reuben  were  entirely  lost.  This  holy  man 
wrote  as  he  was  moved  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  there  was 
no  necessity  for  the  making  up  of  the  defects,  no,  nor  for 
the  rectifying  of  the  mistakes  of  these  genealogies  by 
inspiration.  It  was  sufficient  that  he  copied  them  out  as 
they  came  to  hand,  or  so  much  of  them  as  was  requisite 
for  the  present  purpose,  which  was  the  directing  of  the 
returned  captives  to  settle  as  nearly  as  they  could  with 
those  of  their  own  family,  and  in  the  place  of  their  former 
residence."  * 

In  such  cases,  as  I  have  ventured  to  remark  elsewhere,! 
inspiration  does  not  create  the  materials  of  its  record, 
but  works  with  those  it  has  received.  In  strictness,  the 
providing  and  preserving  of  sound  historical  material  for 
the  sacred  record  is 

THE   WORK   OF   PROVIDENCE 

rather  than  that  of  inspiration  ;  and  a  wonderful  provi- 
dence it  has  been.  For  instance,  Luke  appeals  for  the 
trustworthiness  of  his  Gospel,  not  to  his  inspiration,  but 
to  the  fact  of  his  "  having  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first,"  "  even  as  they  delivered  them 
unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  of 
the  word"  (Luke  i.  1-3).  Inspiration  is  a  free,  living 
force  which  informs  and  moulds  the  material  thus 
received  for  the  ends  which  God  designs  in  His  written 
Word. 

*  Com.  in  loc. 
t  Cf.  Problem  of  O.T.,  p.  486. 

275 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

VI. 

On  the  principle  now  stated  one  might  easily  explain 
the  appearances  of  discrepancy  occasionally  met  with  in 
the  narratives  of  the  Gospels,  without  detracting  in  any 
way  from  the  reality  of  inspiration — e.g.,  as  to  whether 
Bartimseus  was  cured  by  Jesus  on  His  going  into,  or  His 
coming  out  of,  Jericho  (Cf.  Matt.  xx.  29,  30  :  Markx.  46  ; 
Luke  xviii.  35).  Such  cases,  however,  seem  to  me  to  be 
perfectly  explicable  on  other,  and  more  probable  lines. 
They  belong  to  that  part  of  the  synoptic  tradition  which 
may  be  supposed  to  have  assumed  a  fixed  form  while  yet 
the  Apostles  were  labouring  together  in  Jerusalem,  and  it 
is  a  priori  highly  unlikely  that  the  statements  in  the 
different  evangelists  are  actually  discrepant.  I  would 
conclude,  therefore,  with  a  few  remarks  on  certain 
principles  which  apply  to  the  alleged 

DISCREPANCIES   IN   THE   GOSPELS. 

Many  of  these  so-called  "  discrepancies,"  as  already 
seen,  are  not  real.  It  is  not  a  real  discrepancy  if  a  say- 
ing is  reported,  or  an  incident  related,  in  slightly  varying 
language  ;  or  if  one  narrative  is  fuller  than  another,  or 
gives  details  which  another  omits ;  or  if  it  presents 
incidents  from  a  different  point  of  view.  It  is  not  a  true 
discrepancy,  e.g.,  if  Matthew  tells  of  two  demoniacs  at 
Gadara  (Matt.  viii.  28),  while  Mark  and  Luke  speak  only 
of  one  (Mark  v.  2  ;  Luke  viii.  27)  ;  or  if  Matthew  speaks 
of  two  blind  men  at  Jericho  (Matt.  xx.  30),  while 
Mark  and  Luke  again  tell  only  of  one  (Mark  x.  46 ; 
Luke  xviii.  35).  As  Matthew  Henry,  in  his  quaint 
way,  puts  it:  "If  there  were  two,  there  was  one" 
(on  Mark  v.  iff). 

A  letter  comes  in  as  I  write  which  affords  an  interesting 
illustration  of  this  very  point.      In   Huxley's  Darwiniana 

276 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

the  Professor  makes  two  references  in  different  papers  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  breed  of  Ancon  sheep.  Here  are  the 
two  passages  : — 

At  pp.  38,  39  :  "  With  the  'cuteness  characteristic  of 
their  nation,  the  neighbours  of  the  Massachussetts  farmer 
imagined  that  it  would  be  an  excellent  thing  if  all  his 
sheep  were  imbued  with  the  stay-at-home  tendencies 
enforced  by  nature  on  the  newly-arrived  ram,  and  they 
advised  Wright  to  kill  the  old  patriarch  of  his  fold,  and 
instal  the  Ancon  ram  in  his  place.  The  result  justified 
their  sagacious  anticipations." 

At  p.  409 :  "  It  occurred  to  Seth  Wright,  who  was,  like 
his  successors,  more  or  less  'cute,  that  if  he  could  get  a 
stock  of  sheep  like  those  with  the  bandy  legs,  they  would 
not  be  able  to  jump  over  the  fences  so  readily;  and  he 
acted  upon  that  idea  "  (italics  mine). 

My  correspondent  suggests  this  as  a  parallel  to  the 
alleged  "  discrepancy"  between  Deut.  i.  gff,  and  Ex.  xviii. 
(Cf.  my  Prob.  o/O.T.,  p.  278) ;  but  it  is  quite  as  applicable 
to  many  of  the  so-called  "  discrepancies "  of  the 
Gospels.* 

One  principle  which  explains  at  least  some  of  the 
apparent  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels  is  that  of  occa- 
sional 

"grouping." 

There  seems  no  doubt  that,  having  regard  to  the  spirit 
rather  than  to  the  exact  letter  of  their  narratives,  the 
Evangelists  in  certain  instances  allow  themselves  the 
freedom  of  grouping  or  combining  their  material.  In  the 
discourses  this  is  commonly  allowed.  In  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  in  Matthew,  e.g.,  long  passages  are  brought 
together,  which  in  Luke  are  found  in  quite  different  con- 
nections (Cf.  Matt.  vi.  9-13  ;  Lukexi.  1-4  ;  Matt.  vi.  25-33; 

*Good  illustrations,  with  pertinent  remarks,  may  be  seen  in 
Ebrard's  Gospel  History,  pp.  59,  60. 

277 


The  Bible   Under  Trial 

Luke  xii.  22-31  ;  Matt.  vii.  7-11 ;  Luke  xi.  9-13).  No 
doubt  Jesus  repeated  many  sayings  at  different  times  and 
places :  but  in  part  there  is  plainly  a  grouping  of  like 
material  where  occasion  offers. 

The  same  applies  to  the  incidents.     This  is  probably, 
e.g.,  the  real  explanation  of  the  diversity  in  the  accounts  of 

THE   CURE   OF   THE   BLIND    MEN, 

on  the  occasion  of  Christ's  visit  to  Jericho.  Luke 
narrates  the  cure  of  a  blind  man  as  Jesus  "drew  nigh" 
to  Jericho  (Luke  xviii.  35-43) ;  Mark  narrates  the  cure 
of  blind  Bartimaeus  (naming  him)  as  Jesus  "  went  out  " 
from  Jericho  (Mark  x.  46-52) ;  Matthew  gives  the  story 
of  the  cure  of  two  blind  men  as  Jesus  leaves  Jericho 
(Matt.  xx.  30-34).  The  accounts  of  the  cure  in  the  three 
cases  are  very  similar.  It  is  simplest  to  suppose  that 
there  were  really  two  cures — one  at  the  entering,  the 
other  at  the  leaving,  of  the  city — and  that  Matthew's 
account  is  the  synopsis  of  the  two. 

Much  difficulty  has  often  been  felt  in  regard  to   the 
harmonising  of 

THE   TWO  GENEALOGIES   OF  JESUS. 

These  are  found,  one  in  Matt.  i.  1-18,  the  other  in  Luke 
iii.  23-38  (one  descending,  the  other  ascending),  and  they 
vary  completely  after  the  mention  of  David.  They  are 
both,  in  form,  genealogies  of  Joseph,  but  they  plainly 
represent  quite  different  lines  of  descent.  We  must 
assume,  therefore — holding  them,  as  we  do,  for  genuine 
— that  they  are  constructed  on  different  principles.  The 
view  has  often  been  advanced  in  modern  times  that  one 
is  the  genealogy  of  Joseph  (Matt.),  the  other  the  genealogy 
of  Mary  (Luke)  ;  but  most  scholars  now  reject  this  as 
contrary  to  the  fair  meaning  of  the  text.     Yet,  in  reality, 

278 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

if    not  in    form,    there    is    every    probability  that    the 
genealogy  of  Mary  is  involved.      The  supposition  which 
has  most  likelihood  is  that,  as   Lord   A.   Hervey,  in  his 
work  on  the  subject,  argues,  the  genealogy  in  Matthew 
represents  the  legal,  that  in  Luke  the  natural  descent  of 
Joseph.     Both  appear  to  touch  in  Matthan  or  Matthat — 
the  grandfather  of  Joseph — and  here  we  may  naturally 
suppose  that  the  key  to  the  solution  lies.      Jacob  is  the 
son  of  Matthan  in  Matthew's  list  (i.  15)  ;  Heli  is  the  son 
of  Matthat  in  Luke's   (iii.  24).      If  we  suppose  Jacob  to 
have  had  no  sons,   but  only  a  daughter,    Mary,  whom 
Joseph,  the  son  of  Heli,  married,  then  Joseph,  as  next  of 
kin  in  the  male  line,   became   (on  Matthew's  principle) 
the  son  of  Jacob,  and  legal  heir  to  the  throne.*      Mary 
and  Joseph,  on  this  view,  were  related  as  cousins. 

The  only  other  example  I  take  is  that  of  the  alleged 
discrepancies  in  connection  with 

THE   NARRATIVES   OF  THE   RESURRECTION. 

The  accounts  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  in  the  four 
Gospels  are  declared  by  many  to  be  perfectly  irreconcil- 
able.! Is  this  certain  ?  I  am  far  from  thinking  so,  if 
the  narratives  are  treated  in  a  reasonable  way.  The 
resurrection  day  was  one  of  great  excitement.  Events 
and  experiences  were  mingled,    grouped,    blended    in  a 

*Dr.  Patrick  Fairbairn,  in  a  judicious  discussion  of  this  subject, 
says  :  "  We  have  the  best  reason  for  supposing  that  the  relationship 
of  Mary,  immediately  to  Joseph,  and  remotely  to  the  house  of  David, 
was  such,  and  so  well  known,  that  the  genealogy  of  the  one,  at  a 
point  comparatively  near,  was  understood  to  be  the  genealogy  also 
of  the  other"  (Hermen.  Manual,  p.  189). 

tRev.  D.  Smith  goes  so  far  as  to  say  in  his  The  Days  of  His  Flesh 
that  "in  their  accounts  of  the  Resurrection  the  Synoptic  narratives, 
elsewhere  so  remarkable  accordant,  bristle  with  discrepancies  which 
refuse  to  be  harmonised  even  by  the  most  violent  expedients " 
(p.  xxxvi.). 

279 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

way  which  no  one  who  was  not  an  eye-witness,  like 
John,  would  venture  afterwards  to  attempt  to  disen- 
tangle ;  the  different  evangelists  give  outstanding  names 
and  facts,  without  pretending  to  furnish  complete  or 
detailed  accounts ;  in  default  of  more  precise  know- 
ledge, their  statements  are  more  or  less  generalised. 
John,  alone,  probably  for  the  very  end  of  giving  greater 
precision  to  certain  events  in  which  he  was  concerned, 
furnishes  a  clear  and  consecutive  statement. 
Yet  through  the  whole  the 

MAIN    FACTS 

stand  out  clearly.  The  early  visit  of  the  women  to  the 
sepulchre  (Mary  Magdalene  grouped  with  the  rest,  though 
in  reality  she  may  have  gone  earlier)  ;  the  stone  rolled 
away ;  the  vision  of  the  angels  and  their  message  (the 
appearances  to  the  women  and  to  Mary  Magdalene 
again  grouped  in  the  narrative  of  Luke)  ;  the  going  to 
tell  the  disciples  (Mary's  going  and  that  of  the  other 
women  grouped  again).  John  makes  the  order  of  events 
a  good  deal  clearer.  Mary  Magdalene  probably  arrived 
first,  it  may  be  with  the  other  Mary  as  companion  (Cf. 
the  "  we  "  in  John  xx.  2) — the  rest  of  the  women  coming 
somewhat  later — but  on  seeing  the  stone  rolled  away  she 
immediately  fled  and  told  Peter,  returning  in  the  wake 
of  Peter  and  John  to  the  tomb.  Then  followed  the 
vision  of  angels,  and  the  meeting  with  Jesus  in  the 
garden  :  according  to  Mark  xvi.  9  (an  addition  to  the 
Gospel,  based  here  on  John),  Christ's  first  appearance. 
Meanwhile,  the  other  women  had  received  the  angel's 
message,  and  departed,  filled  with  fear,  joy,  and  amaze- 
ment. One  point  on  which  real  difficulty  rests  is — 
whether  the  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  women  in  Matt, 
xxviii.  8,  9,  is  a  distinct  event,  or  whether,  as  some  think, 
the  passage  is  to  be  taken  as  simply  a  generalised  state- 

280 


Discrepancies  and  Difficulties 

ment  of  the  single  appearance  to  Mary  Magdalene  re- 
corded by  John.  It  seems  most  naturally  to  refer  to  a 
distinct  or  second  appearance  of  Jesus.  If  so,  then  some- 
what more  time  must  have  elapsed  during  or  after  the 
women's  visit  to  the  sepulchre  than  we  should  otherwise 
have  supposed :  time  to  allow  of  Mary's  return,  and  of 
Christ's  appearance  to  her.  Possibly  Mary  overtook  the 
others  on  their  way  back,  and  all  told  the  apostles 
together. 

The  events  of  the  resurrection  morning  thus  do 

FIT   INTO   EACH   OTHER 

better  than  the  ordinary  catalogue  of  minute  "discre- 
pancies "  would  suggest.  It  is  at  least  an  exaggeration 
to  say:  "It  is  hardly  too  much  to  affirm  that,  as  they 
[the  Synoptic  narratives]  stand,  they  agree  only  in  their 
unfaltering  and  triumphant  proclamation  of  the  fact  that 
Jesus  rose  and  appeared  to  His  disciples "  (Smith, 
p.  xxxvi.). 


281 


XII 


The  Bible  the  Hope 
of  the  World 


The  Bible  the  Hope 
of  the  World 

IT  was  remarked  in  the  first  paper  that  the  best  proof 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  the  spiritual  effects 
which  it  produces.     These  are  of  a  character 

WRIT   LARGE 

on  the  page  of  history.  Moses  extolled  the  unique 
privilege  of  Israel  in  having  "  statutes  and  judgments  so 
righteous  as  all  this  law"  (Deut.  iv.  8).  Psalmists 
celebrate  in  glowing  terms  the  spiritual  power  of  God's 
"law"  in  converting,  enlightening,  sanctifying,  comfort- 
ing, and  guiding  the  soul  (Pss.  i.,  xix.  7-11  ;  cxix).  Paul 
counts  it  the  chief  privilege  of  his  nation  that  "  they  were 
entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God"  (Rom.  iii.  2).  The 
same  apostle  declares  that  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures 
which  Timothy  possessed  were  "  able  to  make  wise  unto 
salvation  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and 
that,  as  "  inspired  of  God,"  they  were  profitable  for 
teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteousness,  "that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete, 
furnished  completely  unto  every  good  work  "  (2  Tim.  iii. 

15-17)- 

The  New  Testament  Scriptures  have  since  been  added 
to  the  Old,  and  we  have  now  in  our  hands  a  complete 
Bible.  Few  will  maintain  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
New  Testament  falls  beneath  that  of  the  Old,  or  that 

285 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

the  spiritual  powers  its  teachings  exert  are  less  wonderful 
than  those  of  the  earlier  Scriptures. 

The  claim  made  for  the  Bible  is  one  that  can  be 

PUT  TO   THE   TEST. 

The  Bible  influences  the  world  through  the  many-sided 
revelations  of  God's  character  and  will  it  contains  ;  it 
specially  influences  it  through  the  historical  image,  and  the 
moral  and  spiritual  teaching,  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  and 
through  the  hopes,  promises,  exhortations,  and  motives,  in 
which  the  Apostolic  writings  abound.  We  speak  with 
gratitude  of  the  profound  influence  which  has  been 
exercised  on  the  world  by  Christianity.  But  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  Christianity  only  comes  to  men,  and  is 
kept  alive  in  their  memories  and  hearts,  through  the 
Bible — through  the  possession,  translation,  diffusion,  and 
devout  and  prayerful  reading,  preaching,  study,  and 
teaching  of  the  written  Word.  Without  the  Bible  to 
revert  to, 

KEEPING   THE   TRUTH   FRESH   AND   LIVING, 

the  image  of  the  Master  would  long  since  have  been 
blurred  and  distorted  beyond  recognition.  His  Gospel 
would  have  been  perverted  beyond  recovery  by  corrupt 
human  tradition.  His  doctrines  and  moral  teaching,  with 
those  of  His  Apostles,  would  have  been  buried  under  a 
mountain-load  of  human  inventions. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  it  is  the 
Bible  which  has 

PRESERVED   CHRISTIANITY 

to  the  world.  If,  as  we  believe,  the  religion  of  Jesus  is 
the  hope  of  the  world,  it  is  the  possession  of  the  Bible 
conveying  and  maintaining  the  knowledge  of  that  religion, 
which  makes  the  hope  possible.  In  saying  that 
Christianity  is  the  hope  of  the  world,  and  that  the  Bible 

286 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

is  the  hope  of  the  world,  we  use  nearly  equivalent 
expressions. 

I. 

A  powerful  argument  for  the  divineness  of  the  Bible 
might  be  drawn  from  a  simple  comparison  of  the  Bible 
with 

THE   SACRED   BOOKS   OF   OTHER   RELIGIONS. 

There  is  a  large  group  of  religions  in  the  world  which 
students  of  the  subject  are  accustomed  to  designate 
11  book-religions  " — this  for  the  reason  that  they  possess, 
like  our  own,  sacred  books  or  scriptures.  Such  books  are 
the  Hindu  Vedas,  the  Parsee  Zend-Avesta,  the  Tripitakas 
and  other  sacred  writings  of  the  Buddhists,  the  Moham- 
medan Koran.  Whatever  light  of  wisdom,  or  gleams  of 
truth  about  God  and  duty  such  books  contain — and  we 
need  grudge  to  them  no  real  "gems"  of  this  kind  they 
possess — there  is,  as  every  candid  judge  will  be  ready  to 
admit,  no  true  comparison  between  these  ethnic  scrip- 
tures, even  at  their  best,  and  the  collection  of  writings 
which  we  term  pre-eminently  the  Bible — the  Book. 
Whether  regarded  as  literature,  as  history,  or  in  the  mes- 
sage they  convey,  the  unique  superiority  of  the  Bible 
stands  out  unchallengeable. 
Take  the  Bible,  for  instance, 

AS   HISTORY. 

It  is  the  simple  fact  that  there  is  nothing  that  can  be 
properly  called  history  in  these  other  sacred  books  of  the 
world.  They  are,  as  every  student  of  them  knows,  for  the 
most  part  jumbles  of  heterogeneous  material,  loosely 
placed  together,  without  order,  continuity,  or  unity  of  any 
kind.  There  is  no  order,  progress,  or  real  connection  of 
parts.  The  Koran,  e.g.,  is  a  miscellany  of  disjointed 
pieces,  loosely  placed  together,  arranged  chiefly  in  order 

287 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

of  length.  The  Bible,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  history 
with  a  beginning,  a  middle,  and  an  end ;  a  history  of 
revelation ;  the  history  of  a  developing  purpose  of  God, 
working  up  to  a  goal  in  the  full-orbed  discovery  of  the 
will  of  God  for  man's  salvation  in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
There  is  nothing  like  this,  nothing  even  approaching  it, 
in  any  other  collection  of  sacred  books  in  the  world. 
As  distinctive  in  its  character  is 

THE  MESSAGE 

of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  not  a  book  of  mere  secular 
wisdom,  though  much  secular  knowledge  is  embodied  in 
it ;  not  a  book  merely  of  grand  thoughts  about  religion, 
or  of  theories  and  speculations  about  divine  things  ;  not 
a  book  simply  of  fine  ethical  teaching,  of  noble  biography, 
of  soul-stirring  narrative.  It  is,  as  just  said,  pre-eminently 
a  book  of  revelation  ;  of  God's  historic  revelations  down 
through  the  ages  to  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  advent 
of  the  Spirit.  These  revelations  form  a  series.  Each 
adds  something  to  those  which  went  before  ;  each  carries 
the  course  of  revelation  a  little  further ;  each  fore- 
shadows a  yet  richer  development  in  the  future  ;  and  when 
the  whole  is  before  us,  we  see  in  it  the  unfolding  of  a 
great  purpose  which  has  its  consummation  in  Christ  and 
His  redemption — a  purpose  the  very  character  of  which 
is  the  guarantee  to  us  that  it  is  the  purpose  of  God,  not 
the  thought  of  man. 

II. 

This  imperfect  glance  suffices  to  show  the  uniqueness 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  inestimable  treasure  we  possess  in 
it.     We  are  now  to  see  how  the  Bible 

VERIFIES   ITS   EXCEPTIONAL   CHARACTER 

and  claims  by  its  history  and  influence,  and  by  the 
blessings  it  confers. 

288 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

It  is  not  too  much  to   say   that  the  Bible,    regarded 
simply  as  a  book,  has  had  an 

UNEXAMPLED   PLACE   IN    HISTORY. 

Its  authors  were  not  learned  men,  as  the  world  counts 
learning  ;  yet  their  writings  have  been  preserved,  read, 
copied,  translated,  and  spread  abroad  to  the  utmost 
corners  of  the  earth,  as  no  works  of  philosophers  or  sages, 
poets  or  orators,  historians  or  moralists,  have  ever  been. 
Take  the  witness  of  manuscripts.  While  of  some  im- 
portant classical  works  only  one  manuscript  is  known  to 
exist,  and  ten  or  fifteen  is  thought  a  large  number  for 
others — few  of  these  dating  beyond  the  tenth  century  of 
our  era — the  manuscripts  of  whole  or  parts  of  the  New 
Testament  are  already  reckoned  by  thousands,  the  oldest 
of  which  go  back  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  and 
parts  are  still  older. 
Or  take  the 

TEST   OF    TRANSLATION 

as  a  mark  of  this  book's  influence.  It  is  no  uncommon 
thing  for  a  popular  book  to  be  translated  into  many 
languages.  Here,  again,  however,  the  Bible  has  a 
record  which  casts  every  other  into  the  shade.  The 
books  of  the  New  Testament  had  hardly  been  put 
together  in  the  second  century  in  what  we  call  the  Canon 
before  we  find  translations  made  of  them  into  Latin  and 
Syriac  and  Egyptian,  and  by-and-by  into  Gothic  and 
other  barbarous  tongues.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  notwith- 
standing the  discouragements  put  upon  the  possession 
and  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  we  find  translations  made 
into  nearly  all  the  leading  languages  of  Europe.  With 
the  art  of  printing  the  work  of  translation  received  a  new 
impetus.  To-day  there  is  not  a  language  in  the  civilised 
world,  hardly  a  language  among  uncivilised  tribes  of  any 
importance,  into  which  this  marvellous  book  has  not  been 

289  U 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

rendered.  Whatever  men  may  say  of  decay  of  faith  in 
the  Bible,  it  is,  as  remarked  earlier,  the  undeniable  fact 
that  its  circulation  in  the  different  countries  and 
languages  of  the  world  to-day  outstrips  all  previous 
records.  The  reports,  e.g.,  of  the  three  great  Bible 
Societies — the  British  and  Foreign,  the  American,  and 
the  National  Bible  Society  of  Scotland — show  for  the 
year  1905  the  enormous  total  of  over  9,000,000  of  issues 
of  the  whole  or  parts  of  the  Scriptures  in  European  and 
heathen  lands  ! 

EVERY   OTHER   TEST 

we  can  apply  to  the  Bible  yields  a  similar  result.  No 
book  has  ever  been  so  minutely  studied,  has  had  so  many 
books  written  on  it,  has  given  birth  to  so  many  com- 
mentaries and  works  of  exposition,  has  evoked  such  keen 
discussion,  has  founded  so  vast  a  literature  of  hymns, 
liturgies,  works  of  devotion,  has  been  so  determinedly 
assailed,  has  rallied  such  splendid  defences,  as  the  Bible  ! 
Why  do  I  mention  these  things  ?  Not  merely  for  their 
own  interest  as  facts,  but  as  proofs  of  the 

UNCONQUERABLE   VITALITY 

which  resides  in  this  book,  of  the  universal  appeal  it 
makes  to  human  hearts,  and  of  the  need  of  ascribing 
the  power  it  exercises  to  some  higher  than  natural 
cause.  Genius  alone  in  the  writers,  even  if  they  were 
allowed  to  take  rank  as  men  of  genius,  would  not  explain 
it.  What  boasts  are  sometimes  made  of  the  genius  and 
scholarship  ranged  against  the  Bible  !  Yet,  as  I  said  at  the 
commencement,  the  Bible  holds  on  its  career  of  conquest 
unchecked,  while  the  works  of  its  assailants,  after  a 
generation  or  two — often  much  less  time — lie  on  the 
shelves  unread.  These  books  have  no  message  to  the 
,  world,  as  the  Bible  has.  The  Bible  is  a  book,  as 
experience  shows,  for  all  races ;  and  it  has  this  character 

290 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

because,  like  the  Gospel  it  enshrines,  it  goes  down  beneath 
all  differences  of  rank,  age,  sex,  culture,  to  that  which  is 
deepest,  most  universal  in  man.  It  bears  translation 
into  all  languages,  because  the  language  of  the  deepest 
things  of  the  soul  is,  all  the  world  over,  one. 
This 

VITAL   PENETRATIVE   CHARACTER  OF   THE   BIBLE, 

attesting  its  divine  quality,  shows  itself  not  simply  in  the 
place  it  holds  in  history,  but  in  the  unexampled  character 
of  the  influence  it  has  been  enabled  to  exert.  To  tell 
what  the  Bible  has  been  and  done  for  the  world  would  be 
to  rewrite  in  large  part  the  history  of  modern  civilisation ; 
to  re-tell  the  story  of  Christian  missions,  including  those 
which  brought  the  Gospel  to  our  own  shores  ;  to  extract 
the  finest  qualities  in  much  of  our  best  literature  ;  to  lay 
bare  the  inner  springs  of  the  lives  of  those  who  have 
laboured  best  and  most  for  the  moral  and  spiritual  well- 
being  of  their  kind.  Trace  back  to  their  springs  the 
great  movements,  the  great  struggles  for  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  in  our  own  and  other  lands,  the  social 
and  humanitarian  movements  which  were  the  distinc- 
tion of  the  past  century,  the  sources  will  be  found 
ultimately  in  the  high  mountain  levels  of  the  Bible's 
teaching.  And  say  what  men  will,  it  is  the  Bible  which 
is  the  source  of  our  highest  social  and  national  aspirations 
still. 

I  shall  return  immediately,  with  more  particularity,  to 
the  proof  of  these  statements.  But  I  may  here  cite  the 
witness  of  one  who  will  not,  I  think,  be  regarded  as 
unduly  biassed  in  favour  of  the  Bible — I  mean 

PROFESSOR   HUXLEY. 

Secularist  and  agnostic  as  he  was,  Professor  Huxley, 
on  more  than   one  occasion,  expressed  himself  in  very 

291 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

remarkable  terms  on  this  unparalleled  influence   of  the 
Bible.*     Here  is  one  of  his  latest  utterances  : — 

"Throughout  the  history  of  the  Western  world,"  he 
says,  "  the  Scriptures,  Jewish  and  Christian,  have  been 
the  great  instigators  of  revolt  against  the  worst  forms  of 
clerical  and  political  despotism.  The  Bible  has  been  the 
Magna  Charta  of  the  poor,  and  of  the  oppressed ;  down 
to  modern  times  no  State  has  had  a  constitution  in  which 
the  interests  of  the  people  are  so  largely  taken  into 
account,  in  which  the  duties,  so  much  more  than  the 
privileges,  of  rulers  are  insisted  upon,  as  that  drawn  up 
for  Israel  in  Deuteronomy  and  Leviticus ;  nowhere  is  the 
fundamental  truth  that  the  welfare  of  the  State,  in  the 
long  run,  depends  on  the  uprightness  of  the  citizen  so 
strongly  laid  down.  Assuredly  the  Bible  talks  no  trash 
about  the  rights  of  man  ;  but  it  insists  upon  the  equality 
of  duties,  on  the  liberty  to  bring  about  that  righteousness 
which  is  somewhat  different  from  struggling  for  '  rights  '  ; 
on  the  fraternity  of  taking  thought  for  one's  neighbour  as 
for  one's  self."+ 

Here  is  another  passage.  Arguing  in  one  of  his  essays 
for  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools,  Professor 
Huxley  bids  us  consider  "that  for  three  centuries  this 
Book  has  been  woven  into  the  life  of  all  that  is  best  and 
noblest  in  English  history  ;  that  it  has  become  the  national 
epic  of  Britain  .  .  .  that  it  is  written  in  the 
noblest  and  purest  English,  and  abounds  in  exquisite 
beauties  of  mere  literary  form  "  ;  and  he  asks,  "  By  the 
study  of  what  other  book  could  children  be  so  much 
humanised,  and  made  to  feel  that  each  figure  in  that  vast 
historical  procession  fills,  like  themselves,  but  a  moment- 
ary  space   in   the  interval  between   two  eternities,  and 

*  The  attention  of  Mr.  Blatchford  and  his  friends,  who  republish 
Huxley  as  wholly  on  their  side,  may  be  directed  to  these  passages. 

t  Essays  Upon  Some  Controverted  Questions,     Prologue,  pp.   52-3. 

292 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

earns  the  blessings  or  the  curses  of  all  times,  according  to 
its  efforts  to  do  good  and  hate  evil,  even  as  they  also  are 
earning  their  payment  for  their  work  ?  "* 

Are  not  statements  like  these  the  best  reply  to  such 
strictures  on  the  "  narrowness  "  of  the  Christian  ethics  as 
we  had  before  us  in  a  previous  paper  ?  Can  a  religion  be 
really  regarded  as  inimical  to  political  freedom,  to  duties 
of  citizenship,  to  education,  to  patriotism,  which  produces 
results  like  the  above  ? 

III. 

Let  me  now  trace  a  little  more  in  detail  some  of 

THE   ACTUAL    BLESSINGS 

which  the  world  owes  to  the  Bible.  For  practical  pur- 
poses, the  influence  of  the  Bible  and  the  influence  of 
Christianity  are,  as  I  have  said,  convertible  ideas.  It 
will  be  convenient  for  me  to  speak,  first,  of  what  the 
world  owes  to  the  religion  of  Christ  in  a  temporal  respect 
— on  the  plane  of  moral  and  social  benefit ;  then  of 
what  the  world  owes  to  it  in  a  spiritual  respect,  or  in 
regard  to  its  eternal  hopes. 

There  are,  I  know  very  well,  and  we  are  never  allowed 
to  forget  it, 

TWO   SIDES   TO   THIS    PICTURE. 

Deeds  have  been  done  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  of 
His  official  Church,  which  reflect  eternal  dishonour  upon 
humanity.  It  is  a  dark  picture  the  historian  has  to  draw 
of  the  abounding  corruption,  the  dead  formalism,  the 
gross  immorality  of  certain  ages  of  the  Church  ;  of  the 
frightful  evils  of  the  periods  of  Roman  and  Byzantine 
ascendency  ;  of  the  spirit  of  intolerance  and  persecution 
directed    against    heretics    and    unbelievers,   and   often 

*  Critiques  and  Addresses,  p.  61. 

293 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

against  Christ's  own  faithful  witnesses,  when  truth  had 
to  be  confessed  in  peril  of  the  dungeon  and  the  stake  ;  of 
superstitions  like  witchcraft ;  of  the  feuds  and  divisions  of 
churches  and  sects  ;  of  the  moral  blots,  the  inconsistencies, 
the  festering  sores  of  vice  and  misery,  of  our  so-called 
Christian  civilisations. 

WE   ACKNOWLEDGE   IT  ALL, 

and  blush  in  the  acknowledgment.  To  dwell  on  such 
things  is  the  stock  in  trade  of  the  anti-Christian  agitator. 
But  in  this  he  is  unjust.  A  fair  mind  will  always 
distinguish — or  try  to  distinguish — between  effects  really 
due  to  the  spirit  and  principles  of  Christ's  religion,  and 
the  false  and  perverted  readings  of  that  religion  given  by 
those  who  had  nothing  in  common  with  its  spirit,  and 
made  it  too  often  the  engine  of  their  own  temporal 
ambitions.  Much  human  infirmity  and  folly  must  be 
stripped  off  if  we  are  to  do  justice  to  this  religion  as  it 
lies  before  us  in  the  Bible.  Mr.  Blatchford's  formerly- 
quoted  words :  "  If  to  praise  Christ  in  words,  and  deny 
Him  in  deeds,  be  Christianity,"  is  not  the  definition  we 
would  accept  of  Christianity.*  To  Christ  Himself  we 
appeal,  as  against  the  people  who  deny  Him. 

If,  then,  we  look  to  the  Gospel  as  it  came  forth  in  its 
purity  from 

THE   LIPS   OF   CHRIST   HIMSELF  AND   OF   HIS   APOSTLES, 

what  do  we  find  it  teaching  ?  What  ideas  did  it  com- 
municate to  the  world  ?  I  look  at  the  subject,  first, 
as  proposed,  from  the  standpoint  of  moral  and  social 
benefit. 

To   understand   what  the  religion   of  the    Bible    has 
accomplished,  we  have  to  think  of  the    kind    of  world 

*  God  and  My  Neighbour.     Pref.  p.  ix. 

294 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

into  which  Christianity  entered.     It  found  a  world  in  the 

LAST   STAGE   OF   DISSOLUTION — 

in  a  state  of  utter  decrepitude  and  decay.  The  old 
religions  had  lost  their  power,  and  with  religion  the 
foundations  of  morals  were  well  nigh  universally 
loosened.  Dissoluteness  flooded  society.  Even  duty  to 
the  State — the  one  duty  that  was  held  supreme — was 
breaking  up  in  all  directions.  There  was  little  sense  of 
individual  right.  In  the  family,  e.g.,  the  father  held  all 
power  in  his  own  hands,  and  wife,  and  children,  and 
slaves,  were  subject  to  his  absolute  authority.  Infanti- 
cide and  exposure  of  children  were  common  and  recognised 
practices.     The 

SOCIAL   STRUCTURE 

was  built  on  slavery,  and  slaves  had  no  protection  of 
any  kind.  Work  was  held  to  be  beneath  the  dignity  of 
citizens,  who,  if  not  possessed  of  wealth,  claimed  to  be 
supported  by  the  State.  The  favourite  amusements  of 
the  populace  were  the  sanguinary  spectacles  of  the 
amphitheatre.  Marriage  had  fallen  into  such  disuse 
that,  though  the  emperors  set  a  premium  on  marriage, 
people  could  hardly  be  induced  to  enter  into  the  bond. 
Worse  than  all,  heathen  society  had  not  within  itself — 
nor  was  it  able  to  find — any  principle  of  regeneration,  for 
religion  had  lost  its  hold,  the  moral  codes  of  the 
philosophers  were  without  sufficient  sanction,  and  there 
were  not  those  ideas  of  the  dignity  and  worth  of  the 
individual  which  could  create  any  noble  or  sustained 
efforts  on  his  behalf.  Noble  examples  of  virtue,  no 
doubt,  there  still  were  ;  friendship,  piety  of  a  sort,  family 
affections,  a  deploring  on  the  part  of  the  better  spirits 
of  the  evils  they  could  do  nothing  to  check  or  subdue. 
But  ancient   civilisation   had    played   itself  out  in  both 

295 


The   Bible  Under   Trial 

thought  and  life,  and  had  not  a  spring  of  renewal  from 
which  recovery  could  come. 

What  now  did  Christianity  bring  to  this 

EFFETE   AND   CORRUPT  AND   SINKING    HEATHENISM  ? 

It  brought  for  one  thing  a  totally  new  idea  of  man 
himself  as  a  being  of  infinite  dignity  and  immortal  worth. 
It  taught  that  every  man,  as  made  in  God's  image,  and 
capable  of  eternal  life,  had  an  infinite  value — a  value 
which  made  it  worth  while  God's  own  Son  dying  for  him. 
It  taught  that  no  man  was  worthless  in  God's  sight ;  that 
every  man,  however  lost  in  sin,  was  redeemable,  and  that 
no  efforts  should  be  spared  for  his  redemption.  It  brought 
back  the  well-nigh  lost  sense  of  responsibility  and 
accountability  to  God.  It  breathed  into  the  world  a  new 
spirit  of  love  and  charity — something  wonderful  in  the 
eyes  of  the  heathen,  who  looked  on  in  amazement  as  they 
saw  institutions  growing  up  around  them  such  as 
paganism  had  never  heard  of  ;  institutions  for  the  care  of 
the  poor,  the  orphan,  the  aged,  the  helpless,  the  fallen, 
the  leper ;  that  wealth  of  charitable  and  beneficent 
institutions  with  which  Christian  lands  are  full.*  It  flashed 
into  men's  souls  a 

NEW   MORAL   IDEAL, 

and  set  up  a  standard  of  truth,  integrity,  and  purity, 
which  has  acted  as  an  elevating  force  on  moral  concep- 
tions till  this  hour.t  It  restored  woman  to  her  rightful 
place  by  man's  side  as  his  spiritual  helpmate  and  equal. 
It  taught  care  for  the  children,  and  created  that  best  of 

*Cf.  Lecky's  History  of  European  Morals,  I.,  p.  412  ;  II.,  pp.  84- 
91,  107.  Uhlhorn  s  Christian  Charity  in  the  Ancient  Church.  "  It 
has  covered  the  globe,"  says  Lecky,  "  with  countless  institutions  of 
mercy,  absolutely  unknown  in  the  whole  pagan  world"  (II.,  p.  91  ; 
Cf-,  p.  107).     Thirty  years  ago  hospitals  were  unknown  in  Japan. 

t  Lecky,  I.,  p.  412. 

296 


The  Bible  the  Hope   of  the  World 

God's  blessings  on  earth,  the  Christian  home.  It  taught 
the  slave  his  spiritual  freedom  as  a  member  of  the  King- 
dom of  God  ;  gave  him  an  equal  place  with  his  master  in 
the  Church ;  and  struck  at  the  foundations  of  slavery  by 
its  doctrines  of  the  natural  brotherhood  and  dignity  of 
man.  It  created  self-respect,  and  a  sense  of  duty  in  the 
use  of  one's  powers  for  self-support  and  the  benefit  of 
others  ;  urged  to  honest  labour  ;  and  in  a  myriad  ways, 
by  direct  teaching,  by  the  protest  of  holy  lives,  and  by  its 
general  spirit,  struck  at  the  evils,  the  corruptions,  the 
malpractices  and  cruelties  of  the  time. 

In  all  these  and  in  numberless  other  ways  that  cannot 
now  be  mentioned,  Christianity,  as  impartial  investigators 
recognise,*  entered  as  a  revolutionising,  regenerating,  and 

RENEWING   PRINCIPLE 

into  that  ancient  society,  and  produced  effects  which 
have  borne  fruit  in  the  new  world  that  has  sprung  up  on 
the  ruins  of  the  old. 

IV. 

Once  the  ideas  I  have  mentioned  had  been  introduced, 
and  had  taken  possession  of  the  world,  they  liberated 
other  forces,  and  gave  birth  to  new  ideas,  which  have 
co-operated  with  them  in  advancing  the  progress  of  the 
race  ;  but  no  one  who  goes  to  the  bottom  of  what  is 

DISTINCTIVE   OF   OUR   MODERN   CIVILISATION 

will  deny  that  the  ideas  I  have  named  are  the  basis  on 
which  our  modern  civilisation  rests,  and  will  as  little 
deny  that,  however  self-evident  some  of  them  may  now 
seem  to  us,  it  was  Christianity  which  practically  put  the 

*Cf.  Lecky,  ut  supra,  Vol.  II.,  throughout ;  Brace's  Gesta  Chris  ti, 
Schmid's  Social  Results  of  Early  Christianity,  &c 

297 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

world  in  possession  of  them,  and  still  sustains  them  in 
men's  minds  as  living  convictions. 

These  ideas  are  now,  in  large  part,  as  I  say, 

THE   COMMON    POSSESSION   OF   MANKIND. 

They  exist  and  operate  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the 
visible  Church.  They  have  been  taken  up  and  contended 
for  by  men  outside  the  Church — unbelievers  even — when 
the  Church  itself  had  become  unfaithful  to  them.  But 
none  the  less  are  they  of  Christian  parentage.  They  are 
the  principles  of  the  Bible — of  the  Gospel.  They  lie  at 
the  basis  of  our  modern  assertion  of  equal  rights  ;  of 
rights  of  conscience  ;  of  justice  to  the  individual  in  social 
and  State  arrangements ;  of  the  desire  for  brotherhood, 
and  peace,  and  amity  among  classes  and  nations.*  It  is 
the  Christian  leaven  that  is  fermenting,  sometimes  in  turbid 
enough  forms,  in  all  this  social  seething  we  see  going  on 
around  us ;  Christian  ideas  which  are  propelling  the  race 
on  in  its  march  of  progress ;  Christian  love  which  is 
sustaining  the  best,  and  purest,  and  most  self-sacrificing 
efforts  to  raise  the  fallen,  rescue  the  drunkard,  and  make 
the  condition  of  the  race  happier  and  better.     And  if 

THE   CHRISTIAN    ROOT   OF  THESE   IDEAS 

and  efforts  were  withdrawn,  it  would  soon  be  seen  how 
many  of  them  would  come  to  be  laughed  at  as  baseless 
ideals,  and  a  very  different  range  of  ideas  and  motives 
would  take  their  place  ;  how,  in  their  race  for  riches,  lust 
for  pleasure,  and  greed  of  power,  men  would  be  willing  to 
trample  the  poor  and  helpless  under  their  feet,  if  only 
they  could  by  that  means  raise  themselves  a  little  higher. 
We  thus  see  that,  even  in  a  temporal  respect,  the  Bible 
and  its  teachings  are 

*We  saw  in  a  previous  paper  how  Mr.  Blatchford's  own  book,  God 
and  My  Neighbour,  is  itself  an  inverted  testimony  to  this. 

298 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 


THE   GRAND   CIVILISING   AGENCY 

of  the  world.  The  experience  of  the  past  proves  it. 
Christian  Missions,  with  their  benign  effects  in  the  spread 
of  education,  the  checking  of  social  evils  and  barbarities, 
the  creation  of  trade  and  industry,  the  change  in  the 
status  of  women,  the  advance  in  the  social  and  civilised  life 
generally,  prove  it.*  We  are  still  far  enough  from  the  goal, 
God  knows.  But  contrast  ancient  Pagan  with  modern 
society,  with  all  its  faults,  and  mark  how  far  we  have 
already  travelled  ;  contrast  Christian  nations  with  nations 
yet  in 

THE   NIGHT   OF   HEATHENISM 

— even  with  such  lands  as  India  and  China — and  note 
the  contrast  in  the  life  of  to-day;  take  the  Christian 
nations  themselves,  and  see  how  it  is  those  that  have  drunk 
most  deeply  into  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who  most  revere 
His  word,  respect  His  day,  and  observe  most  purely  His 
worship,  that  stand  foremost  in  all  the  elements  that 
constitute  true  progress — foremost  in  enlightenment,  in 
wealth,  in  virtue,  in  social  order  and  happiness ;  take, 
finally,  the  godly  and  godless  classes  in  the  same  society, 
and  mark  how  the  tone  of  our  public  life,  and  the 
stability  of  our  institutions  are  strengthened  by  the 
former,  and  are  daily  put  in  jeopardy  by  the  latter! 

"  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  to  hate  evil  "  (Prov.  viii.  13)  ; 
and  in  proportion  as  that  fear  spreads  itself  through  a 
community,  the  community  will  be  stable,  progressive, 
prosperous.     Given  a 

BIBLE-READING,    BIBLE-LOVING   PEOPLE, 

and  it  will  not  be  long  before  such  a  people  is  found  well- 

*See  Dr.  Dennis's  remarkable  volume,  Christian  Missions  and  Social 
Progress- 

299 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

housed,  well-clothed,  industrious,  and  content ;  before 
the  demons  of  drink  and  poverty  disappear  from  its 
midst  ;  before  schools  and  colleges  spring  up  to  educate 
its  children  ;  before  all  the  tokens  of  a  genuine  prosperity 
are  visible  within  its  borders. 

V. 

Thus  far  I  have  been  speaking  of  the  temporal  advan- 
tages accruing  from  the  religion  of  the  Bible.     But  the 

CHIEF   BLESSING 

of  the  possession  of  the  Bible  is  not  told  till  we  speak  of 
what  the  world  owes  to  it  in  a  religious  respect,  and  in 
regard  to  its  eternal  hopes.  The  two  things  are  con- 
nected, for  the  moral  reforms  wrought  by  Christianity 
can  never  be  dissociated  from  its  religious'  ideas.  Nothing 
elevates  the  mind  or  raises  the  affections  so  much  as  right 
thoughts  of  God.  In  the  light  of  His  relation  to  God,  man 
attains  to  the  sense  of  his  dignity  and  worth  as  a  moral 
being,  and  feels  that  life  has  an  end  which  makes  it  worth 
living,  The  chief  gain  of  the  Bible,  therefore,  is  still 
untold  when  we  speak  only  of  its  literary,  and  moral,  and 
civilising  effects.  It  is  not  disclosed  till  we  think  of  its 
message  of  the  love  of  God,  and  that  light  of  eternal  hope 
which  streams  from  it  into  a  world  which,  despite  all 
speculations  of  reason,  and  brilliance  of  civilisation, 
would  be  hopelessly  dark  as  respects  the  future  with- 
out it. 

It  is  the  Bible  which  gives  the  knowledge  of  God.  I 
need  not  do  more  than  lift  a  corner  of  the  veil  which  at 
this  distance  of  time  hides  from  us  the  condition  of 

THE   ANCIENT  WORLD 

in  a  religious  respect.  What  a  spectacle  of  ignorance  of  the 
true  God  and  of  the  way  of   life   it   is  which  presents 

300 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

itself!  In  one  place  it  is  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets 
which  are  the  objects  of  worship.  Elsewhere,  as  in 
Egypt,  temples  are  built  to  four-footed  beasts  and 
creeping  things  of  the  earth  (Cf.  Rom.  i.  23).  In  other 
places,  as  in  India,  the  great  natural  objects — the  sky, 
the  dawn,  the  rain,  the  rivers,  fire,  &c. — are  the 
favourite  deities.  In  Greece  men  adore  gods  sculptured 
in  forms  of  human  beauty.  In  Rome  gods  of  all  countries 
are  swept  together,  and  worship  is  paid  to  them.  Round 
the  roots  of  these  religions  clung  innumerable  superstitions  ; 
the  rites  of  many  of  them  were  licentious  and  revolting  ; 
in  the  service  of  gods  of  lust  and  gods  of  wine,  the  most 
shameful  orgies  were  enacted.  Where,  from  the  list  of 
these  heathen  gods,  or  in  the  stories  told  of  them,  could  men 
get  one  idea  to  elevate  them,  one  impulse  to  raise  them 
above  themselves  to  nobler  life  ?  When  Plato  sketched 
an  ideal  Republic,  his  first  concern  was  to  banish  the 
myths  of  the  gods  out  of  it.* 
Think  of 

OUR   OWN    ISLAND 

at  the  time  when  the  light  of  Christianity  first  broke 
upon  it.  Druid  priests  chant  their  mysterious  songs,  go 
through  their  mystic  ceremonies  in  dim  forest  recesses, 
plunge  the  sacrificial  knife  into  shrieking  human  victims. 
The  tribes  who  supplant  them  bring  over  their  wild 
Scandinavian  traditions  ;  sing  the  praises  of  Thor  and 
Odin  ;  revel  in  the  prospect  of  a  Valhalla,  where  they 
will  drink  blood  from  the  skulls  of  their  slain  enemies ! 
Look  at  the  lands  which  lie  even  yet  in  the  shadow  of  death 
of  heathenism.  See  their  lords  many  and  their  gods 
many,  their  cruel  practices,  their  revolting  superstitions. 
As  every  student   of  social  progress  knows,   their  false 

* Republic Bk.  II. 

301 


The   Bible   Under  Trial 

religions  rest  on  these  lands  with  the  weight  of  an  incu- 
bus, and  there  can  be  no  real  progress  till  this  incubus 
is  shaken  off. 

It  is  the  poet  Milton  who  in  his  great 

ODE  ON   THE   NATIVITY 

has  described  the  dire  consternation  in  the  ranks  of  the 
heathen  deities  at  the  announcement  of  the  birth  of 
Christ.  Christ  came,  and  as  His  religion  spread,  the 
vapours  of  a  dense  heathen  superstition  rolled  away 
before  it,  and  gave  place  to  a  purer  faith,  and  to  a  nobler 
worship.  Corruption,  as  we  know,  early  seized  on 
Christianity  also,  and  in  the  course  of  centuries  attained 
huge  proportions.  But  we  know,  too,  how,  from  time  to 
time,  as  at 

THE    REFORMATION, 

through  the  force  of  that  vitality  within  it,  which  is  but 
another  name  for  the  abiding  presence  of  God's  Spirit  in 
its  midst,  Christianity  has  risen  up,  and  thrown  the  worst 
of  these  corruptions  off,  and  come  forth  stronger  and  purer 
than  before.  It  is  the  Bible  which  in  every  case  has  been 
the  instrument  of  God's  Spirit  in  these  Reformations. 
It  is  the  same  Bible  which  has  been  the  agency  in  that  long 
series  of  historical  Revivals  by  which  the  Church  has  once 
and  again  been  saved  in  days  of  stagnation  and  unbelief. 
Without  the  Bible  not  one  of  these  great  changes  would 
have  been  brought  about. 
And  how 

MARVELLOUS  THE  RESULTS ! 

To  the  Gospel  of  Christ  we  owe  it  that  we  ourselves  are 
not  to-day  worshipping  stocks  and  stones,  but  are  bowing 
in  acknowledgment  of  the  one  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  above  all  and  in  all.     It  was 

302 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

Christianity  that,  in  the  early  centuries,  overthrew  the 
reign  of  the  gods  and  goddesses  of  Greece  and  Rome, 
and  swept  them  so  entirely  from  faith  and  history  that  no 
one  now  so  much  as  dreams  of  the  possibility  of  the 
revival  of  their  worship.  It  was  Christianity  that,  still 
retaining  something  of  its  youthful  energy,  laid  hold 
of  the 

ROUGH,  BARBARIAN  PEOPLES 

that  overran  Europe,  and,  with  the  Bible's  aid,  trained  and 
moulded  them  to  some  kind  of  civilisation  and  moral  life. 
It  was  Christianity  that,  in  Scotland,  lighted  a  light  in 
the  monasteries  of  Iona  and  other  places,  that  by-and-by 
spread  its  beams  through  every  part  of  the  country. 
Just  as  to-day  it  is  Christianity  that  is  teaching  the 
idolaters  to  burn  their  idols,  to  cease  their  horrid 
practices,  to  worship  the  true  God,  and  take  upon  them 
the  obligations  of  decent  and  civilised  existence. 
As  it  is  with  the  knowledge  of  God  so  is  it  with 

HOPE    FOR  THE   FUTURE. 

The  ancient  world  was  as  much  in  the  darkness  about 
a  future  life  as  it  was  about  the  being  and  character  of 
God,  and  what  notions  it  had  were  perplexed,  confused,  and 
erroneous  in  the  extreme.  But  Christ,  as  He  came  from 
God  and  went  to  God,  has  shed  a  new  light  into  the  depths 
of  the  Unseen,  and,  by  His  own  Resurrection,  has  opened 
the  gates  of  a  new  and  assured  hope  to  mankind  (i  Pet. 
i.  3).  The  lesson  of  all  history  is  that,  apart  from  the 
Bible,  and  this  hope  which  it  contains,  the  world  but 
gropes  in  darkness,  and  wanders  into 

DEEPER  AND  EVER  DEEPER  UNCERTAINTY, 

from  the  scepticism  in  which  ancient  Rome  and  Greece 
ended,  to  the  unconcealed  Agnosticism,  and  deeper  than 

303 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Agnosticism,    the     Pessimism,     under     the    depressing 
influence  of  which  our  modern  age  groans. 
Take  a  single  illustration.     I  took  up  lately  a 

WORK  OF   FICTION 

— a  book  written,  its  lately  deceased  author*  tells  us, 
"  for  the  first  time  in  my  life  wholly  and  solely  to  satisfy 
my  own  taste  and  my  own  conscience  " — and  this  is  the 
kind  of  teaching  it  offers.  The  author  is  speaking  in  his 
own  name.  "  Blank  pessimism,"  he  says,  "  is  the  one 
creed  possible  for  all  save  fools.  To  hold  any  other  is  to 
curl  yourself  up  selfishly  in  your  own  easy  chair,  and  say 
to  your  soul,  '  O  soul,  eat  and  drink  ;  O  soul,  make  merry.' 
.  .  .  Pessimism  is  sympathy  ;  optimism  is  selfishness. 
.  .  .  All  honest  art  is  therefore  of  necessity  pessi- 
mistic." The  close  of  the  book  describes  the  suicide  of 
the  heroine,  and  its  last  words  are :  "  Her  stainless  soul 
ceased  to  exist  for  ever." 
In  such  an 

ECLIPSE   OF   HOPE 

— and  there  is  more  of  that  eclipse  at  this  hour  in  human 
minds  and  hearts  than  one  sometimes  realises — what  can 
bring  light  to  the  world,  but  the  glorious  message  of  life 
and  immortality  through  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 

Look  once  more  at  heathenism.  Here  is  an  extract 
from  a  letter  recently  received  from  a  young  missionary 

WORKING   IN    INDIA. 

"  I  have  had  to  give  up  the  idea,"  he  says,  "  of 
sending%home  impressions  of  heathenism.  Much  of  it  is 
literally  indescribable,  and  a  good  deal  of  it  too  awful  to 
describe.  It  does  not  enter  into  one's  mind  all  at  once 
that  one's  whole  environment  in  a  place  like  this  is 
almost  incredibly  vile.     Things  have  not  so  appalling  an 

*  Grant  Allen. 

304 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

appearance  on  the  surface,  but  here  and  there  are  breaks, 
and  one  gets  a  glimpse  inside."  Then  follows  a  "  counter- 
picture"  of  the  changes  seen  in  the  "  boys  "  at  his  Insti- 
tution. "  Here  is  a  very  primitive  Christianity,  if  you 
like  ;  but  for  pluck,  frank  good  nature,  real  affection,  and 
honest,  downright  fidelity  (according  to  their  lights),  as 
widely  different  from  heathen  boys  as  night  from  day." 

It  is  this  Gospel  which  to-day  is  flooding  with  hope 
and  courage 

MYRIADS   OF   HEARTS 

that  would  otherwise  be  in  deepest  despondency ;  that  in 
India,  in  China,  in  Africa,  in  the  New  Hebrides,  in  every 
land  to  which  it  comes,  in  rising  like  a  great  "  rose  of 
dawn,"  a  "  dayspring  from  on  high,"  fraught  with  hope 
and  healing  for  the  woes  of  men.  But  in  this  great  work 
of  the  recovery  of  mankind  to  God,  of  the  regeneration  of 
the  world,  how  absolutely  indispensable  is  the  Bible ! 
Without  it,  what  could  the  missionary, 

ARM   AND   TONGUE   PARALYSED, 

accomplish  ?  With  it,  even  in  the  absence  of  the 
missionary,  what  wondrous  changes,  moral  miracles  even, 
are  sometimes  effected  !  Like  seeds  wafted  by  the  wind 
into  the  crevices  of  hard  rock,  that  grow,  and  flourish,  and 
by-and-by  split  the  rock,  the  simple  truths  of  the  Bible, 
without  a  human  tongue  to  expound  and  enforce  them, 
have  often  taken  root,  and  brought  forth  amazing  fruit, 
to  God's  sole  glory.  It  was  through  a  copy  of  the  New 
Testament,  found  floating  in  the  waters  of  the  Bay  of 
Yeddo,  that  the  Gospel  re-entered  Japan,  and  created  the 
first  band  of  disciples — the  nucleus  of  the  future  Church — 
when  as  yet  no  Christian  teacher  was  permitted  to  enter, 
and  the  profession  of  Christianity  was  prohibited  on  pain 
of  death. 

Need  I,  finally,  in  this    plea  for    the    power   of    the 
Bible,  go  further  than  its 

305  x 


The   Bible  Under  Trial 

BLESSED  RESULTS  TO  OURSELVES? 

What  do  we  not  owe  to  the  Bible,  and  to  the  Gospel  which 
it  brings  ?  I  have  spoken  already  of  civil  blessings ;  I 
look  now  only  to  the  spiritual.  Our  innumerable 
churches,  our  Sabbath  rest  and  privileges,  the  religion 
whose  power  inspires  so  much  earnest  life,  and  so  much 
noble  work,  the  blessed  effects  of  that  religion  in  peace, 
in  strength,  in  moral  impulse  in  the  minds  that  possess 
it,  the  comfort  it  dispenses  in  trial,  and  the  joy  and 
triumph  it  gives  in  death — all  this  is  the  fruit  of  the 
message  of  the  Bible.  Whatever  blessings  or  hopes  we 
can  trace  to  our  Christian  faith ;  whatever  light  it 
imparts  to  our  minds,  or  cheer  to  our  hearts  ;  whatever 
power  there  is  in  it  to  sustain  holiness  or  conquer  sin — 
all  this  we  owe  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  came,  and  lived,  and 
died,  and  rose  again,  and  has  given  us  of  His  Spirit ;  and 
that  we  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands  to  tell  us  that  He 
did  it,  and  what  He  expects  us  to  be  and  do  as  His 
disciples. 

Here  I  close  these  papers.     Surveying  the  whole  road 
we  have  travelled,  am  I  not  entitled  to  claim  that 

THE   ROCK  OF   GOD'S   TRUTH 

stands  fast,  and  that  Jesus,  His  Gospel,  and  the  Book 
that  sets  forth  both,  are  still,  let  men  gainsay  as  they  will, 
the  spiritual  powers  that  hold  in  them  the  hope  of  the 
world's  future.  Christ's  reign  is  not  ending.  It  will 
endure.  In  many  ways,  voluntary  or  involuntary, 
His  supremacy  is  owned  by  the  very  persons  who  most 
loudly  dispute  His  claims. 
In  Browning's  poem, 

"CHRISTMAS   EVE," 

we  are  introduced  to  a  German  Professor,  who,  after 
having  in  the  usual  way  resolved  the  life  of  Jesus  into 

306 


The  Bible  the  Hope  of  the  World 

myth,  suddenly  changes  his  tone  completely.     "  Admire 
we,"  the  poet  says,  how — 

"  When  the  Critic  had  done  his  best, 
And  the  pearl  of  price,  at  reason's  test, 
Lay  dust  and  ashes  levigable 
On  the  Professor's  lecture  table, — 
When  we  looked  for  the  inference  and  monition 
That  our  faith,  reduced  to  such  condition, 
Be  swept  forthwith  to  its  natural  dust-hole, — 

He  bids  us,  when  we  least  expect  it, 
Take  back  our  faith, — if  it  be  not  just  whole.     .     .     . 

'  Go  home  and  venerate  the  myth 

1 1  thus  have  experimented  with — 

'This  man,  continue  to  adore  Him 

'  Rather  than  all  who  went  before  Him, 

'  And  all  who  ever  followed  after  ! ' " 

Thus  paradoxically  does  even  unbelief  confirm  the  Scrip- 
ture statement  that  God  has  given  Jesus  "  the  name  which 
is  above  every  name  "*  (Phil.  ii.  9).  Christ's  own  Church, 
with  more  consistency,  echoes  the  confession.  But  so 
long  as  Christ,  in  His  self-attesting  power,  commands 
the  allegiance  of  believing  hearts,  the  Bible,  which 
contains  the  priceless  treasure  of  God's  Word  regarding 
Him,  will  remain  in  undimmed  honour.  It  will  be 
read,  prized,  and  studied  by  devout  minds,  while  the 
world  lasts. 


*It  would  be  easy  to  collect  striking  testimonies  to  the  moral  and 
spiritual  supremacy  of  Jesus  from  those  who  deny  His  supernatural 
claims.  Mr.  Blatchford's  holding  up  of  Christ  as  the  ideal  has 
already  been  remarked  on.  I  notice  that  in  my  copy  of  his  book, 
God  and  My  Neighbour,  the  pronouns  referring  to  Christ  are  printed 
with  capitals  ("  He,"  "  Him,"  "  His,"  &c).  A  copy  of  the  Clarion  I 
bought  a  year  ago  proved  to  be  a  "  Christmas  Number  "  !  Even  in 
dating  his  letters  and  papers  by  the  year  of  our  Lord,  the  unbeliever 
unwittingly  shows  that  for  him  also  history  is  divided  into  two  great 
sections— before  and  after  Christ. 

307 


Appendix 


Appendix" 


PROF.    G.    A.    SMITH    ON 

"RECENT    DEVELOPMENTS    OF    OLD 

TESTAMENT    CRITICISM." 

A  STRIKING  corroboration  of  the  statement  that  the 
"shaking"  in  Old  Testament  criticism  is  not  all  in 
one  direction  is  furnished  by  the  able  article  on  "  Re- 
cent Developments  of  Old  Testament  Criticism"  in  the 
January  number  of  the  Quarterly  Review,  from  the  pen  of 
Dr.  G.  A.  Smith.  Eighteen  or  twenty  years  ago,  Dr. 
Smith  says,  everything  was  thought  to  be  tolerably  well 
settled.  Now,  apparently,  it  is  mostly  all  unsettled 
again,  except  as  to  the  main  facts  of  the  analysis,  and 
perhaps  the  exilic  date  of  the  priestly  law  (the  latter  a 
view  which  seems  to  be  to  the  present  writer  de- 
monstrably untenable).  With  three-fourths  of  the  article 
one  can  express  hearty  agreement.  The  criticism  of  Dr. 
Cheyne,  who  "stalks  through  the  Negeb  and  Northern 
Arabia,  sowing  forests  on  the  hills,  and  lifting  kingdoms 
from  the  sand,"  of  the  new  textual  criticism  of  the 
poetical  and  prophetical  books,  "through  which  it  drives 
like  a  great  ploughshare,  turning  up  the  whole  surface, 
and  menacing  not  only  the  minor  landmarks,  but,  in  the 
case  of  the  prophets,  the  main  outlines  of  the  field  as 

♦Reprinted  by  permission  from  an  article  on  "Things  that  Remain," 
by  the  present  writer,  in  The  Churchman  for  March,  1907. 

3" 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

well,"  and  of  the  new  and  revolutionary  Babylonian 
school  of  Winckler,  is  trenchant  and  successful.  It  is  a 
large  admission  when  the  writer  allows  that  Wellhausen 
and  Professor  Robertson  Smith  were  wrong  about  the 
dates  of  the  patriarchal  narratives,  and  signifies  his 
adhesion  to  Gunkel  in  carrying  back  these  narratives  to 
1200  B.C.  Gunkel  may  still  regard  the  narratives  as 
legendary — though  he  "  has  shown  that  we  must  read  in 
them  the  style,  the  ideas,  and  the  historical  conditions  of 
the  ages  before  Moses" — but  we  are  certain  that,  if  Dr. 
Smith  applied  his  pen  to  the  task,  he  could  as  effectively 
dispose  of  Gunkel's  fantastic  theory  of  the  origin  of  the 
"legends"  as  he  has  done  in  the  case  of  Winckler's 
hypothesis  that  the  prophets  were  the  kept  agents  of 
foreign  powers.  Stories  such  as  we  have  about  the 
patriarchs,  with  their  depth  of  meaning,  and  penetration 
with  promise  and  purpose,  are  not  the  kind  of  thing  that 
legend  produces. 

Larger  results  follow  from  the  range  of  these  ad- 
missions than  appear  in  the  article.  If  the  patriarchal 
narratives  existed  in  1200  B.C.,  who  will  certify  that  they 
may  not  have  existed  much  earlier  ?  If  they  existed  then, 
why  could  they  not  be  written  then  ?  (The  article  has 
little  to  say  on  the  recent  discoveries  on  the  early  de- 
velopment of  writing.)  The  chief  reasons  for  the  ordi- 
nary dating  of  J  and  E  fall  to  the  ground  if  the  narratives, 
as  Gunkel  thinks,  have  no  mirroring  of  events  after  900. 
Or,  again,  if  the  narratives  go  back  to  1200,  how  far  are 
we  supposed  to  be  from  the  Exodus  ?  If  the  Rameses  II. 
theory  of  the  Oppression  is  maintained,  the  Exodus  will 
fall,  in  the  opinion  of  recent  scholars,  not  earlier  than 
about  1230  or  1250.  Dr.  Smith  may  put  it  a  little 
sooner.  In  any  case,  on  this  view  1200  B.C.  takes  us 
back  so  nearly  to  the  Mosaic  age  that  the  difference 
hardly  seems  worth  fighting  for. 

312 


Appendix 


In  the  article  some  friendly  criticisms  are  offered  on 
the  present  writer's  volume  on  the  Old  Testament,  and 
certain  objections  are  mentioned  to  the  early  date  of  the 
Deuteronomic  and  Levitical  legislation  there  maintained 
which  are  thought  to  be  "  insuperable."  A  word  may  be 
said  on  these  in  concluding.  They  may  not  leave  the 
same  impression  of  "  insuperableness  "  on  other  minds. 

The  objections  (specified)  are  three  in  all :  i.  That 
Elijah  "  repaired  "  and  sacrificed  at  the  altars  of  Jehovah 
— this  in  disproof  of  the  existence  of  the  law  of  a 
central  altar  (Deut.  xii.).  But  one  may  well  ask: 
What  was  Elijah  to  do  after  the  complete  suspen- 
sion of  political  and  religious  relations  between  the 
Northern  and  Southern  Kingdoms  which  ensued  almost 
immediately  after  the  house  of  Jehovah  had  been  built  ? 
What  could  he  do,  or  would  he  be  likely  to  do,  but  just 
what  is  narrated — fall  back  on  the  simpler  forms  of 
worship  that  previously  had  prevailed  ?  The  repairing 
of  the  altars  of  Jehovah  does  not  show,  at  least,  much 
sympathy  with  the  calf-worship,  the  flocking  to  the 
shrines  of  which  was  probably  the  cause  of  neglect  of  the 
altars. 

2.  That  Jeremiah  states  (vii.  22)  that  Jehovah  gave  no 
commands  to  Israel  concerning  burnt-offerings  and  sac- 
rifices— this  in  proof  that,  if  the  Levitical  laws  were 
extant  in  Jeremiah's  time,  he  was  ignorant  of  them.  But 
this  surely  is  a  large  and  impossible  inference  from  a 
passage  that  can  quite  easily  be  understood  in  a  less 
absolute  way.  It  involves  the  view  that  Jeremiah  did  not 
know  (or  accept)  Deuteronomy  in  a  form  which  included 
chapter  xii.  ("  all  that  I  command  you,"  ver.  11)  ;  it  over- 
looks that  it  is  not  the  Levitical  laws  only  that  command 
and  regulate  sacrifice — surely  Jeremiah  knew  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant  (Cf.  Exod.  xx.  24,  xxiii.  18),  and  was  not 
ignorant  of  the  sacrifices  at  the  making  of  the  covenant 

313 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

(Cf.  Exod.  xxiv.  5-8) — and  it  is  contradicted  by  the  fact 
that  Jeremiah,  like  other  prophets,  himself  pictures  sacri- 
fices and  offerings  as  part  of  the  order  of  the  perfected 
theocracy  (xvii.  26;  Cf.  xxxiii.  17,  18).  In  any  case,  is  it 
not  true,  according  to  the  Pentateuch  itself,  that  when 
God  brought  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  and  made  His 
covenant  with  them,  the  stress  was  laid  primarily  on 
moral  obedience  (Exod.  xix.  5,  xx.,  xxiv.  7),  and  that  the 
Levitical  sacrifices  had  a  secondary  place  ? 

3.  A  special  disproof  of  the  existence  of  the  Levitical 
law  is  found  in  the  narrative  of  the  sins  of  Eli's  sons  in 
1  Sam.  ii.  "  The  demand  of  these  sons  of  Belial,  as  the 
narrative  calls  them  [to  have  the  flesh  given  to  them 
raw] ,  is  the  very  thing  that  Leviticus  enjoins."  But  is 
this  criticism  cogent  ?  First,  the  rendering  probably 
needs  to  be  amended.  Instead  of,  "  And  the  custom  of 
the  priests  with  the  people  was  that,"  etc.  (ver.  13),  the 
rendering  of  the  Revised  Version  margin,  "  They  knew 
not  the  Lord,  nor  the  due  [right]  of  the  priests  from  the 
people,"  has  the  balance  of  scholarly  opinion  in  its  favour. 
It  is  the  rendering  adopted  or  preferred  by  Wellhausen, 
Nowack,  Klostermann,  Van  Hoonacker,  H.  P.  Smith, 
Driver,  etc.  Then,  the  practice  of  the  sons  of  Eli  in 
taking  their  portion  of  the  sacrifice  with  a  hook  out  of  the 
pot  in  which  it  was  boiling  falls  into  its  place  as  an  abuse. 
When  contradiction  is  found  in  their  demand  to  have 
their  portion  given  to  them  "raw" — which  was  the  thing 
the  law  contemplated — the  accent  is  laid  in  the  wrong 
place.  The  quarrel  of  the  people  with  the  priests  was 
that  the  priests  refused  to  burn  the  fat  on  the  altar  before 
claiming  or  seizing  their  portion.  They  seem  to  have 
been  willing  to  give  the  priests  their  portion  in  any  form 
desired — why  should  they  not  ? — provided  the  fat  was 
first  burned  (ver.  16).  The  "sons  of  Belial"  refused, 
and  helped  themselves  by  violence  when   the  flesh  was 

314 


Appendix 

being  cooked.  So  far  from  contradicting  the  Levitical 
law,  the  passage  testifies— (i)  to  a  "  right  "  or  "due"  of 
the  priests  from  the  people,  (2)  to  the  fact  that  portions 
were  assigned  them  from  the  sacrifices,  and  (3)  to  a  law 
requiring  them  to  burn  the  fat  before  doing  anything  else. 
There  was  certainly  no  Levitical  law  entitling  them  to 
neglect  or  postpone  the  burning  of  the  fat. 

It  looks  as  if  the  existence  of  the  ritual  laws,  instead  of 
being  overthrown,  was  very  clearly  established. 


3i5 


Index 


Index 


Addis,  W.  E.   ...  ...  ...  ...59,  61,  74,  81,  86,  91,  98^. 

Archaeology,  19,  35,  ii\ff.\  discovery  in  Babylonia,  122-4,  137; 

in   Egypt,    122,  131,    138;   bearing   on   traditions,   125; 

Hittites,  124, 128  ;  writing,  127  ;   bearings  on  chronology, 

J33»  135-7 ;  on  Daniel  ...  ...  ...  ...         140 

Astronomy,  objections  to  Bible  from,  11,  199,  203,  209;  Dr. 

R.  A.  Wallace  on   ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         211 

Blatchford,  R.,  on  Bible  and  Christianity,  228,  236,  245,  292,  294,  307 

Baur,  F.  C,  25,  27  {see  "  Tubingen  School")- 

Bleek,  J.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  65 

Bible,  The,  a  tried  book,  4  ;  forms  of  assault  on,  11  ;  inspira- 
tion of,  4,  53,  187,  257,  267,  285,  288;  science  and,  11-13, 
199  {see  "Astronomy,"  "Geology,"  "Evolution,"  etc.); 
Criticism  and,  12,  13,  54,  154  {see  "Criticism")  ;  organic 
character  of,  53,  288  ;  alleged  discrepancies  in,  257,  276 ; 
circulation  of,  8,  26,  290 ;  translations  of,  7,  289 ;    the 
hope  of  the  world    ...  ...  ...  286,294,299,303 

Briggs,  E.  A.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...    21,  75 

Bousset,  W.,  on  Christ  and  the  Gospels  ...         56,  149,  152,  170,  183 
Browning,  R.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         307 

Budde,  K.        ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  59,  60,  101 

Celsus  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  25-6,  181 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  16,  59,  100 ;  on  N.T.         ...  ...  ...     157-8 

Christ,  centre  of  controversy,  147,  149  ;  humanitarian  views 
of,  148;  sinlessness  of,  160;  Messiahship  of,  155-6; 
oneness  with  Father,  162;  birth,  157,  164-6;  resurrec- 
tion, 166-7  ;  miracles,  191 ;  ethical  teaching  and  ideals  of, 
229,  244,  249  ;  influence  of  ...  ...  ...  250,  307 

3*9 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

Christianity,  ethics  of,  244  ;   contrast  with  Paganism,  295, 
299,  304  ;  its  renovating  influence,  296,  302,  306  ;  effects 
on  civilisation,  296-8,  299  ;   spiritual  blessings  of,  300, 
306;  alone  brings  hope        ...  ...  ...  ...        303 

Criticism,  Higher,  what?  13,  49  ;  Wellhausen  School  of,  14, 
51,  55;  methods  of,  54;  results  of,  55,  73;  stages  of 
development,  76  ;   theory  of  religion,  97  ;  application  to 

N.T 150,  154,  171 

Codes  in  O.T.  ...  ...  ...  ...  55,  62,  68,  74,  82 

Colenso,  Bp.    ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...     65,78 

Comparative  Mythology,  applied  to  N.T....  ...  11,  21,  157 

Daniel  ...  55,  75,  140 

Davidson,  S.    ...            ...  ...             ...            ...                27,  92-3 

De  Wette        ...            ...  ...            ...            ...            ...    57,76 

Delitzsch,  F.    ...            ...  ...            ...            ...            ...          97 

Demon-Possession         ...  ...            ...            ...            ...        222 

Deuteronomy...            ...  62-3,67-8,70,76,83-4,86,105,113,115-6 

Dillmann,  A.   ...            ...  ...            ...             ...             ...     67,  84 

Discrepancies,  alleged  ...  ...            ...                257,  260,  263,  276 

Driver,  S.  R.    ...            ...  ...            ...           70,82,84,99,116-7 

Drummond,  J....            ...  ...            ...                 172-3,181-2,189 

Duhm,  B 59,  77,  97 

"Duplicates"...            ...  ...            ...            ...                 89,262 

Evolution  in  O.T.,  59;  and  Darwinism,  203,  219-20;  and 
design,  204,  219;  and  origin  of  man,  199,  218;  newer 
views  of    ...  ...  ...  ...  •••  •••    219-20 

Ethics,  relation  of  Bible  to,  227^;  progress  in  ethical 
conceptions,  230 ;  misrepresentations,  232  ;  of  Jesus, 
229,  244,  249 ;  not  anti-social  ...  ...  248,  253-3 

Frazer,  J.  G.,  on  Christianity       ...  ...  ...  ...         158 

Foster,  G.  B.  57,  73,  15°>  155,  160,  182-3,  204,  206,  207,  219 

Graf,  K.  H 17,55,77,83 

Genealogies  of  Christ,  216,  278-9  ;  in  O.T.  ...  215-6,  273 

Geology,  and  the  Bible,  12,  199,  212  ;  Haeckel  on  Creation 

narrative  ...  ...  ...  •••  •••  •••         2I3 

God,  names  of  ...  ...  •••  •••  ...76,88-9 

Gospels,  Baur's  theory  of,  31,  35  ;  criticism  of,  154,  171-2  ; 
evidence  for  genuineness,  175  ;  relations  of,  184  ;  trust- 
worthiness of,  191  {see  "Matthew,"  "Mark,"  etc.). 

320 


Index 

Gunkel,  H.,  20,  87-8  ;  on  N.T.    ...  ...  ...  150,  157 

Haecekel,  E.,  his"  Monism,"  200-1  ;  on  Genesis  i.,  213  ;  on 

man's  origin ''  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...218220 

Harnack,  A.     ...  ...  ...  ...  ...    39-42,  73,  172-3 

Hammurabi,  Code  of     ...  ...  ...  ...       68,  128,  130-1 

Hexateuch        ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  75,  79,  8x 

Hilprecht,  H.  V.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         137 

"  Historical-Critical"  School       ...  ...  19,149-50,154,182 

Holyland  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         149,  152,  161 

Holtzmann,  O.  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         167 

Huxley,  T.,  on  Second  Advent,   193  ;   on  pre-historic  man, 

221-2  ;  on  demon-possession,  222-3  ;  on  value  of  Bible  ...        297 

Inspiration        ...  ...  ...  4,  53,  187,  257,  267^  285,  288 

Image-worship,  in  Israel  ...  ...  ...  101-3,  112-3 

John,  Gospel  of,  31  ;  discoveries  bearing  on,  36,  162,  165  ; 

genuineness  of,  172,  179,  181-2,  188,  relation  to  Synoptics         187 
J  and  E  documents        ...  ...  ...    55,76,78,81,86,88,108 

Kaftan,  J.         ...  ...  ...  ...  56-7,151-2,163,173 

Kautzsch,  E.     ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  6i,  81,  99 

Kelvin,  Lord,  on  science  and  religion        ...  ...  ...         202 

Kent,  C.  F.       ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  60 

Kollmann,  J.,  on  Pithecanthropus  erectus ...  ...  ...         221 

Kuenen,  A.      ...  ...  ...     17,  55,  57,  78,  81-2,  89,  97-8,  104 

Levites,  ...  ...  ...  55,61,64,66,106,114-15 

Luke,  Gospel  of,  and  Acts,  31,  37  ;  genuineness,  39  ;  accuracy 

of  ...  ...  ...  42,  165,  172,  181,  183,  187 

McFadyen,  J.  E.  ...  ...  ...  ...89,111,140,142 

Miracles,  denial  of,   57,  149,   151;  possibility  of,  153,  206-8; 

of  Jesus    ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         191 

Missions  ...  ...  ...  ...      10,  291,  299,  301,  304-5 

Man,  antiquity  of,  215  ;  origin  of,  218  ;  and  ape,  218,  220-1  ; 

oldest  skulls  of       ...  ...  ...  ...  ...      221-2 

Mark,  Gospel  of  ...  ...  ...  ...       31,  179,  183-4 

Materialism     ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  200,  205-6 

Matthew,  Gospel  of      ...  ...  ...  ...  31,  179,  183 

Monotheism,  in    Israel,  critical  denial  of,  100  ;  in  prophets, 

104;  proof  of  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         no 

321  Y 


The  Bible  Under  Trial 

N.T.  Criticism,  20- i, ;  Baur  School  of       ...  27,56,150,154,171 

Nietzsche,  F.,  on  Christ's  morality  ...  ...  ...     228-9 

O.T.,  Criticism,  11,  13,  49  ;   relation  to  N.T.,  20,  150  ;  stages 

in  76,  {see  "  Criticism") ;  ethics  of     ...  ...227,  232,  237,  242 

Otto,  R.,  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  204-6, 219 

Prayer,  and  law  .,.  ...  ...  ...  ...      207-8 

Psalter  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...     75,  103,  117-18 

Patriarchal  Period  ...  ...  ...  99-100,  109-10,  130-1 

Peake,  A.  S ,.37-8,63,74,91,173,187 

Pentateuch,  51,  62,  74  ;  analys  s  of,  76  {see  "Criticism"). 

Pessimism        ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         304 

Petrie,  W.  M.  Flinders  ...  ...  ...  128-9,  x34>  J3^-9 

Priestly  Law  55,  60-1,  63,  69-70,  75,  83-5,  88,  101,  106,  114,  116 

Prophets  ...  ■••74S,  91.  io2>  104>  "2)  I38»  I43"4>  ^94.  242-3 

Providence,  and  law       ...  ...  ...  ...  ...     207-8 

Ramsay,  Sir  W.  ...  ...  ...  ...  39,  42,  45 

Rationalism,  in  Middle  Ages,  7  ;   in  eighteenth  century,  7-8  ; 
in  O.T.   Criticism,  14,  17,  56,  97  ;   in  N.T.  Criticism,  21, 

27,  151,  182 
Religion  of  Israel,  critical  theory  of,  97  ;  Biblical  view  of     ...        107 
Revelation       ...  ...  ...  ...  55,  58,  288,  299,  304 

Revivals  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  10,  302 

Ritschl,  A.       ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  27,  33-4,  37,  162 

Romanes,  G.  J.,  201  ;  on  science  and  religion         ...  ...        202 

Resurrection  of  Christ  ...  ...  ...153,157,166-7,192,279 

Sacred  Books  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         287 

Sanday,  W.      ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  172-3,  176 

Second  Advent  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...      193-5 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  11  ;  on  Christ's  morality    ...  ...  ...        249 

Steuernagel      ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...       82-3 

Schmiedel,  P.  W  S.      ...  ...  ...  ...  155,  182 

Science,  and  religion,   11,  199,  202-3  5  Pr°f-  Tait  on,  200-1  ; 

G-  J-  Romanes  on,  202  {see  "Astronomy,"  "Geology," 

"  Evolution,"  etc.). 
Schmidt,  N.     ...  ...  ...  148,  152,  155,  158,  160,  182-4 

Smith,  D.        ...  ...  ...  ...  223-4,  270,  279,  281 

Smith,  W.  R 64 

322 


Index 

Supernatural,  denial  of,  in  O.T.,  56-7;  in  N.T.,  151;  in 
Christ,  160-3,  x9!  5  birth  and  resurrection,  164  ;  in  religion 
of  Bible     ...  ...  ...  ...  ...290-1,302,304-5 

Tait,  P.  G  ,  on  religion  and  science           ...            ...  ...      201.2 

Tatian,  his  Diatessaron ...             ...             ...             ...  36,175-8 

Tubingen  School  of  Criticism,  17,  27^ ;  its  prestige,  32  ;  its 

decadence,  ^  ■  modern  break  with,  ...            ...  ...          37 

Virgin  Birth  of  Christ     ...  ...  ...  152,157,164-6,192 

Voltaire  ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  5,11,26 

Wallace,  A.  R.  on  astronomy       ...  ...  ...  ...         211 

Wellhausen,  J.  14,  28,  32,  41,  57,  60,  62,  78,  82-3,  97,  104,  m, 

126;  on  N.T.  ...  ...  ...  150,  155,  157,  192 

Westphal,  A.    ...  ...  ...  ...  ...  15,80,81 

Winckler,  H.  W.  ...  ...  ...        20,  61,  69,  75,  98,  125 

Writing,  early  use  of      ...  ...  ...  ...  ...         127 


323 


R.  VV.  SIMPSON  AND  CO.,   LTD., 

PRINTERS, 

RICHMOND  AND  LONDON. 


BS500  .075 

The  Bible  under  trial :  in  view  of 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00043  7774 


